Young mother with 4-month old baby on the streets

corner of hells

Muir wrote: »

And you said yourself earlier in the thread you've had to direct people to Garda Stations. People are being turned away for accommodation. I don't know if the story in this particular case is genuine or not, but I know there's a growing problem here that many on this thread seem to think doesn't exist.

I imagine your job has been getting more and more difficult lately, I know it can be tough so respect to you for doing it.

At the moment families are being prioritised over say addicts for example.So outreach teams if they find a family will do anything to get families indoors either hostels, hotels or b&b.s..

The families that being found are only just homeless often as little as a couple of hours.I'm just not aware of focus or Simon doing what you said other than pick up at night.

Appreciate the comment.

corner of hells

Stheno wrote: »

But what if this person made themselves what is called deliberately homeless as they say in the UK?

Is that right, that if they have some accomodation with family etc that they can choose to go on the homeless list?

I've never met anyone who has deliberately made themselves homeless.

FortySeven

Stheno wrote: »

But what if this person made themselves what is called deliberately homeless as they say in the UK?

Is that right, that if they have some accomodation with family etc that they can choose to go on the homeless list?

I think the benefit of the doubt has to take precedence in a situation involving such a young mother and child. It is not so easy to see a way out of these situations for a teenager.

Emergency accommodation should be provided but better safeguards should be in place tto ensure long term housing cannot be accessed without need.

alias no.9

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

That's just it, we do not know what the story is at all.

Apart from something said in the Dail earlier in soundbytes according to the normal "gotcha" script from the opposition.

Obv a constituent. So MLMD, why not take the girl and baby into your own home now for a night or two?

Oh I know....but this kind of pothole filling constituency level Dail politics is ridiculous now, should be with LAs.

The Dail is a legislature, not a Social Workers head office.

SF have much higher representation on Dublin City Council than the other parties maybe she should give them a call

Stheno

FortySeven wrote: »

I think the benefit of the doubt has to take precedence in a situation involving such a young mother and child. It is not so easy to see a way out of these situations for a teenager.

Emergency accommodation should be provided but better safeguards should be in place tto ensure long term housing cannot 've accessed without need.

Many years ago I was in an abusive relationship and ended up on O'Connell St in Dublin and the guards suggested sleeping in the station or going home.

My post wasn't to suggest they are using this as a means to get social housing as I don't believe they will, but rather to question why they needed emergency accomodation.

I was literally in fear of my life and unable to return to my home as a result, if this 18 year old is in the same situation I feel for them, but wonder why they were refused emergency accomodation,

corner of hells

Stheno wrote: »

Many years ago I was in an abusive relationship and ended up on O'Connell St in Dublin and the guards suggested sleeping in the station or going home.

My post wasn't to suggest they are using this as a means to get social housing as I don't believe they will, but rather to question why they needed emergency accomodation.

I was literally in fear of my life and unable to return to my home as a result, if this 18 year old is in the same situation I feel for them, but wonder why they were refused emergency accomodation,

I'm not sure they refused emergency accommodation as such... there just isn't a lot of emergency accommodation for families.

Muir

corner of hells wrote: »

At the moment families are being prioritised over say addicts for example.So outreach teams if they find a family will do anything to get families indoors either hostels, hotels or b&b.s..

The families that being found are only just homeless often as little as a couple of hours.I'm just not aware of focus or Simon doing what you said other than pick up at night.

Appreciate the comment.

I know families are being prioritised - I've heard it's hard to even get around to dealing with single people at the moment - and the outreach teams are doing great work. But finding places for families is being left to the outreach teams when they aren't accommodated by the councils for whatever reason (such as the story in the OP). What worries me more is that it's getting worse, and eventually the outreach teams wont be able to accommodate everyone eight with the way it's going. Yet other people don't seem to see that there's an issue. It is something they do, but only once they've worked with you and you are genuine and accessing the services.

Also, I've never heard of anyone deliberately making themselves homeless either.

Stheno

corner of hells wrote: »

I'm not sure they refused emergency accommodation as such... there just isn't a lot of emergency accommodation for families.

They were refused due to lack of genuine need according to the op

FortySeven

Stheno wrote: »

They were refused due to lack of genuine need according to the op

It could be family related. The services will contact the family who say 'sure, we'll take them in' and accommodation is refused on that basis.

It does not mean it is safe for them to go there as it was in my case. It takes time and multi agency cooperation (social services, medical, charities) to determine the true story.

Often the civil servant just has boxes to tick and checklists to follow and life is not so regimented.

I'm not blaming anyone, it's just the way it is.

Stheno

FortySeven wrote: »

It could be family related. The services will contact the family who say 'sure, we'll take them in' and accommodation is refused on that basis.

It does not mean it is safe for them to go there as it was in my case. It takes time and multi agency cooperation (social services, medical, charities) to determine the true story.

Often the civil servant just has boxes to tick and checklists to follow and life is not so regimented.

I'm not blaming anyone, it's just the way it is.

I agree with you but Social services just see an alternative and say no

Gatling

Muir wrote: »

Also, I've never heard of anyone deliberately making themselves homeless either.

I personally know of at least 5 people who made themself's homeless when there was no previous threat of homelessness .
All were receiving rent supplement with working partners but pocked the rent supplement for 8+ months and when landlords went to evict they declared themselves homeless claiming landlords were loosing their properties to banks .
all moved into local hotels and don't pay a cent to the costs

corner of hells

Gatling wrote: »

I personally know of at least 5 people who made themself's homeless when there was no previous threat of homelessness .
All were receiving rent supplement with working partners but pocked the rent supplement for 8+ months and when landlords went to evict they declared themselves homeless claiming landlords were loosing their properties to banks .
all moved into local hotels and don't pay a cent to the costs

That's an amazing gamble to make , hotels aren't obliged to keep people registered as homeless indefinitely, they can and have been putting families out with little or no notice.

There's significant evidence now in Dublin that on bank holiday weekend's , concert and big match weekend's hotels are putting families out.

Muir

Gatling wrote: »

I personally know of at least 5 people who made themself's homeless when there was no previous threat of homelessness .
All were receiving rent supplement with working partners but pocked the rent supplement for 8+ months and when landlords went to evict they declared themselves homeless claiming landlords were loosing their properties to banks .
all moved into local hotels and don't pay a cent to the costs

They're nuts, because people are now being turned away from hotels (as in being given a huge list of hotels to call by the councils and being told no by every single one). Hotels are given on a short term basis in many cases and you can be thrown out if it books up with normal guests etc. I'm not sure if it's different for people who have been in a hotel longer term though. I don't know anyone who would want to live with their family in a hotel room with no cooking facilities etc. and I do know people who have been there and done their best to get out and rent privately. I can't understand anyone intentionally putting themselves and their family in that situation.

Gatling

Muir wrote: »

They're nuts, because people are now being turned away from hotels (as in being given a huge list of hotels to call by the councils and being told no by every single one). Hotels are given on a short term basis in many cases and you can be thrown out

It is nuts but I also see why it's also attractive to some .
They get their weekly benefits and monthly children's allowence ,no rent to pay ,no esb to pay or gas,Internet access through wifi.
Cooked breakfast every morning in the 2 hotels I know locally.
Hand outs from St Vincents in vouchers and help from other charities.
Priority on the housing list.

Now I'm on rent supplement and struggle to maintain a budget that keeps a roof over our heads and the kids in shoes and clothing yet I see and talk to parents who have made themself's homeless and have several hundred euro more disposal income every week while living in hotels .

We've created a crazy system

Its dead Jim

Has anyone gathered proof she is lying or do they just assume all homeless people are just trying to get a free house?

Muir

Gatling wrote: »

It is nuts but I also see why it's also attractive to some .
They get their weekly benefits and monthly children's allowence ,no rent to pay ,no esb to pay or gas,Internet access through wifi.
Cooked breakfast every morning in the 2 hotels I know locally.
Hand outs from St Vincents in vouchers and help from other charities.
Priority on the housing list.

Now I'm on rent supplement and struggle to maintain a budget that keeps a roof over our heads and the kids in shoes and clothing yet I see and talk to parents who have made themself's homeless and have several hundred euro more disposal income every week while living in hotels .

We've created a crazy system

But there's a constant risk of being thrown out, a hotel doesn't have to keep you. It would be a horrible way to live with that a constant worry. It varies from council to council too, some do require you to pay toward the cost of staying in a hotel (obviously a lot less than the actual cost). I imagine those that see it as a good option are in the minority. And those that do view it as attractive might change their minds if they end up being out out one night when the hotel is busy - hopefully it doesn't happen but it's a risk.

I know it's hard looking at other people take advantage of the system when you're struggling, and I hope things improve for you.

makingmecrazy

Stheno wrote: »

But what if this person made themselves what is called deliberately homeless as they say in the UK?

Is that right, that if they have some accomodation with family etc that they can choose to go on the homeless list?

That phrase, imo, suits an agenda of those who coined it.
It instantly puts the blame on the person fleeing/leaving a solid physical shelter.
But consider this....
What makes a person do this? To leave bricks and mortar of whatever for it takes, to sleep rough in the cold and damp, fear of assault etc with practically a new born baby.
I know too many people, and it the most it must be said, are women, who have stayed in horrific situations because the "streets" was a last option.
Consider being burned, raped, beaten. Emotional and psychological abuse, be it by a husband/partner or mother/father.
I cannot imagine that the very vast majority make themselves "deliberately homeless" without extenuating circumstances.
Sometimes, what seems to be the last option becomes your only option.

edit the above isn't directed at you Stheno, just a comment on the phrase "deliberately homeless"

makingmecrazy

makingmecrazy wrote: »

That phrase, imo, suits an agenda of those who coined it.
It instantly puts the blame on the person fleeing/leaving a solid physical shelter.
But consider this....
What makes a person do this? To leave bricks and mortar of whatever for it takes, to sleep rough in the cold and damp, fear of assault etc with practically a new born baby.
I know too many people, and it the most it must be said, are women, who have stayed in horrific situations because the "streets" was a last option.
Consider being burned, raped, beaten. Emotional and psychological abuse, be it by a husband/partner or mother/father.
I cannot imagine that the very vast majority make themselves "deliberately homeless" without extenuating circumstances.
Sometimes, what seems to be the last option becomes your only option.

edit the above isn't directed at you Stheno, just a comment on the phrase "deliberately homeless"

Worked in housing 7 years

The phrase would never- now I mean never- be used in any such circumstances

People itt on both sides painting ridiculous extremes based on zero information imo

wokingvoter

Muir wrote: »

Well I have a close family member who works with them and we just discussed this in the past hour. The outreach team has to work with you for a week to know you before they will confirm you are homeless to the council. And yes there are freephone numbers, but there are not enough beds. Not in the hotels or the hostels, so people are being turned away by the councils and by the freephone numbers because there just aren't the beds. Its not even a case that the councils don't want to help, they don't have enough resources because the problem has gotten so bad.

There's no "outreach" team where I live or in countless other towns around the country, or Focus or Simon
If you are genuinely homeless you will be accommodated in a B&B
That's it.

wokingvoter

Its dead Jim wrote: »

Has anyone gathered proof she is lying or do they just assume all homeless people are just trying to get a free house?

It's not that she's lying
The article is misleading
There's more to the story than meets the eye
People are wishing up to this selective story telling
That's it really

Muir

wokingvoter wrote: »

There's no "outreach" team where I live or in countless other towns around the country, or Focus or Simon
If you are genuinely homeless you will be accommodated in a B&B
That's it.

Well in Dublin, where this girl was found according to the story, there are outreach teams and even if you are genuinely homeless there are not enough beds. Cork is the same, as I'm sure are other parts of the country. As I said earlier, I don't know if we're hearing the full story here or not, but this sort of thing is happening and it's. Maybe it doesn't happen where you live but there are issues across the country, but it doesn't mean it's not going on elsewhere.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The baby should be placed in foster care until the mother can sort out/provide a safe home for her child.

You know, I left school ten years ago. A lot of the girls I know from school, a lot of them already have baby number 2, with one girl having baby number 3. Out of 12 girls, 2 of them live at home with their mam, 1 has her own house and the rest of them are in council housing. I just don't understand that mentality. Have children but have no money to support them.

Then there's uproar and dramatic headlines "young mum with 4 month old baby homeless". There are single people with no kids probably on housing lists for a council house almost as long as the young mum has been alive.

People need to think more about their responsibilities and less about their rights.
Providing for a child > the right to have a child

wokingvoter

Muir wrote: »

Well in Dublin, where this girl was found according to the story, there are outreach teams and even if you are genuinely homeless there are not enough beds. Cork is the same, as I'm sure are other parts of the country. As I said earlier, I don't know if we're hearing the full story here or not, but this sort of thing is happening and it's. Maybe it doesn't happen where you live but there are issues across the country, but it doesn't mean it's not going on elsewhere.

Show me an incident of the State leaving a 4 month old baby to sleep rough last night, or any night. Where social workers refused to take a baby into care, house it, feed it, clothe it.
Point me to where it happened.
You cant because it didn't happen.
If a baby slept rough last night it was because the childs parents decided that it was sleeping rough.
And if you know of circumstances where a child slept rough then you have a duty to report the parents of the child to AGS.
Please don't direct me to uncorroborated sensationalist clickbait Indo articles where people who didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it from their local authority pitched tents in parks and put sleeping bags in cars before ringing the media to come quick and take a picture.

JustTheOne

wokingvoter wrote: »

Show me an incident of the State leaving a 4 month old baby to sleep rough last night, or any night. Where social workers refused to take a baby into care, house it, feed it, clothe it.
Point me to where it happened.
You cant because it didn't happen.
If a baby slept rough last night it was because the childs parents decided that it was sleeping rough.
And if you know of circumstances where a child slept rough then you have a duty to report the parents of the child to AGS.
Please don't direct me to uncorroborated sensationalist clickbait Indo articles where people who didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it from their local authority pitched tents in parks and put sleeping bags in cars before ringing the media to come quick and take a picture.

Most sensible post in this thread.

Muir

wokingvoter wrote: »

Show me an incident of the State leaving a 4 month old baby to sleep rough last night, or any night. Where social workers refused to take a baby into care, house it, feed it, clothe it.
Point me to where it happened.
You cant because it didn't happen.
If a baby slept rough last night it was because the childs parents decided that it was sleeping rough.
And if you know of circumstances where a child slept rough then you have a duty to report the parents of the child to AGS.
Please don't direct me to uncorroborated sensationalist clickbait Indo articles where people who didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it from their local authority pitched tents in parks and put sleeping bags in cars before ringing the media to come quick and take a picture.

Outreach teams are finding families on the streets and placing them in accommodation - go chat to the people working in the homeless services that are seeing it. I wasn't talking about social services, neither was the story that was told, it was about a family presenting to the homeless service - there are many families doing this daily. Yes, social services would take the child - a reason there are families afraid to even seek help for fear of their children being taken away. And while I understand people saying it's better for the child to be in care, no one wants their child to be taken from them - especially when they don't know where they'll end up. It's disgusting that if people aren't accommodated they are left with a choice of either keep your child on the streets (and hope the outreach team will help) or put them in care and still stay on the streets yourself. I'm not saying keeping the children in a car or on the streets is the right choice but it's certainly one I can understand.

And yes, I know you can't believe everything in the media - I don't know if the story in the OP is true - what I do know is I have a family member dealing with families in this situation every day. There is definitely a problem, and even if social services started taking children off families who can't currently afford the ever-increasing rents, then they would be the ones struggling to find a place for them all. So either the councils and homeless services struggle to place families or the already overburdened social services take children into care and struggle to find a place for them (while the parents are likely still on the streets). It doesn't really address the problem.

JustTheOne

Muir wrote: »

Outreach teams are finding families on the streets and placing them in accommodation - go chat to the people working in the homeless services that are seeing it. I wasn't talking about social services, neither was the story that was told, it was about a family presenting to the homeless service - there are many families doing this daily. Yes, social services would take the child - a reason there are families afraid to even seek help for fear of their children being taken away. And while I understand people saying it's better for the child to be in care, no one wants their child to be taken from them - especially when they don't know where they'll end up. It's disgusting that if people aren't accommodated they are left with a choice of either keep your child on the streets (and hope the outreach team will help) or put them in care and still stay on the streets yourself. I'm not saying keeping the children in a car or on the streets is the right choice but it's certainly one I can understand.

And yes, I know you can't believe everything in the media - I don't know if the story in the OP is true - what I do know is I have a family member dealing with families in this situation every day. There is definitely a problem, and even if social services started taking children off families who can't currently afford the ever-increasing rents, then they would be the ones struggling to find a place for them all. So either the councils and homeless services struggle to place families or the already overburdened social services take children into care and struggle to find a place for them (while the parents are likely still on the streets). It doesn't really address the problem.

So let's say a landlord ups the rent.

They don't just throw them out on the streets that day. It doesn't happen like that and it can't.

It takes months. So if these families are being evicted but didn't present themselves to homeless charities or whatever then there is something else to it.

JustTheOne

JustTheOne wrote: »

So let's say a landlord ups the rent.

They don't just throw them out on the streets that day. It doesn't happen like that and it can't.

It takes months. So if these families are being evicted but didn't present themselves to homeless charities or whatever then there is something else to it.

What about circumstances where someone is kicked out by their family or partner? Where there's abuse in the home? Drug issues at home? Other addictions? Psychiatric issues?

There are plenty of reasons why someone could suddenly become homeless. What an unthinking thing to write.

JustTheOne

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What about circumstances where someone is kicked out by their family or partner? Where there's abuse in the home? Drug issues at home? Other addictions? Psychiatric issues?

There are plenty of reasons why someone could suddenly become homeless. What an unthinking thing to write.

You quoted about families unable to afford rent anymore.

snubbleste

Deleted User wrote: »

Worked in housing 7 years
The phrase would never- now I mean never- be used in any such circumstances
People itt on both sides painting ridiculous extremes based on zero information imo

That's false.
The phrase is widely used by Housing authorities staff to refuse assistance.

selastich2

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What about circumstances where someone is kicked out by their family or partner? Where there's abuse in the home? Drug issues at home? Other addictions? Psychiatric issues?

There are plenty of reasons why someone could suddenly become homeless. What an unthinking thing to write.

her partner was with her

Its dead Jim

wokingvoter wrote: »

It's not that she's lying
The article is misleading
There's more to the story than meets the eye
People are wishing up to this selective story telling
That's it really

She is either homeless or not. There's nothing selective about it.

snubbleste

This is an example of a woman who deliberately made herself and child homeless even though she had a place to live.. and the Council assissted her
http://www.herald.ie/news/mum-of-baby-with-heart-condition-went-homeless-to-get-flat-nearer-childrens-hospital-31404975.html

JustTheOne

JustTheOne wrote: »

You quoted about families unable to afford rent anymore.

That was a different poster, champ.

JustTheOne

snubbleste wrote: »

This is an example of a woman who deliberately made herself and child homeless even though she had a place to live.. and the Council assissted her
http://www.herald.ie/news/mum-of-baby-with-heart-condition-went-homeless-to-get-flat-nearer-childrens-hospital-31404975.html

But but that doesn't happen.

JustTheOne

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That was a different poster, champ.

My bad.

Muir

JustTheOne wrote: »

So let's say a landlord ups the rent.

They don't just throw them out on the streets that day. It doesn't happen like that and it can't.

It takes months. So if these families are being evicted but didn't present themselves to homeless charities or whatever then there is something else to it.

But in a lot of cases the services wont deal with you until you are actually homeless - likely because they just don't have the resources and are already inundated with people needing help. Where they do try to help with prevention measures with a solicitor to look over your lease for example, landlords sometimes start making their lives more difficult when they try fighting the eviction even if they're correct in doing so. And finding alternative accommodation is obviously very difficult and very competitive right now, so seeking help early doesn't always work either sadly.

Muir

snubbleste wrote: »

This is an example of a woman who deliberately made herself and child homeless even though she had a place to live.. and the Council assissted her
http://www.herald.ie/news/mum-of-baby-with-heart-condition-went-homeless-to-get-flat-nearer-childrens-hospital-31404975.html

It's very hard to get emergency accommodation in a different country than the one you're from, the council usually wouldn't deal with you, so the childs health must have been a big consideration for it even to be allowed.

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

That's false.
The phrase is widely used by Housing authorities staff to refuse assistance.

Read the part of my post you just quoted, find the part you seem to not have understood noting "any such circumstances", instance me an example of these circumstances where someone was deemed to have made themselves homeless or retract your 'false' comment please.

Two Tone

So JustTheOne, CaraMay and others, just to get this straight: she could be a scammer (I agree she could - unfortunately some cynicism is justified) but there is utterly no chance whatsoever that she could be genuine. Like, not even a teensy weensy chance, based on... no evidence, just ye deciding it. Is that what you guys are saying?

There is no chance that: contraception failed, that she was in a relationship which ended, that she was desperate enough to stay outside all day with her baby in tow until 12:30 at night because her only accommodation option is an unsafe environment (I take back my questioning of it being deemed cold at night at the moment - last night I was at an outdoor event and it was extremely bloody chilly!), that her circumstances changed drastically beyond her control, that she possibly did not decide "Knock me up - I am skint but I'll get benefits" (you know, this is not ALWAYS what is going through a young sexually active woman's head ), that a homeless shelter is a scary place for them, that she could be a person who will pay all of this back once she is back on her feet? Zero chance whatsoever of any of the above?

Why not leave aside Mary Lou McDonald's political points-scoring, "blame the government" (I don't see how the government is to blame for an individual's circumstances) opportunism and just consider the girl in question and the possibility that she is genuine, and that none of us are immune from falling on hard times. Cynicism is understandable (and necessary) but complete and utter suspicion and hostility and assuming the worst without evidence... do you really want to be one of those kinds of people?

**** the self entitled, "I know my rights" crowd, but I do not want to live in a society where the genuine who have fallen on hard times get lumped in with the self entitled/irresponsible.

wakka12

JustTheOne wrote: »

Why did she and her partner decide to have a baby when they have no adequate accommodation for the baby?

I'm sorry but it's the attitude of I'm entitled to everything but don't have to take responsibility for my actions.

Maybe it was accidental? Maybe the contraception used was faulty?Maybe she couldn't afford to go to england for an abortion then? Maybe she thinks abortions are wrong? Maybe she was able to cater for a baby's needs up until recently but then suddenly lost her job or had family issues?
You know this line gets very tiresome. Its very unlikely that this woman thought it a great idea to just have a baby for the craic under her current circumstances.

And maybe you are right , maybe she did make a huge mistake and have a baby. But so what, **** her like? Tough luck!? This is an infant child, regardless of the reasons for her having this baby we need to help an innocent helpless child. Is your punishment for her stupidity and carelessness to let her and her child perish on the streets ?

JustTheOne

wakka12 wrote: »

Maybe it was accidental? Maybe the contraception used was faulty?Maybe she couldn't afford to go to england for an abortion then? Maybe she thinks abortions are wrong? Maybe she was able to cater for a baby's needs up until recently but then suddenly lost her job or had family issues?
You know this line gets very tiresome. Its very unlikely that this woman thought it a great idea to just have a baby for the craic under her current circumstances.

And maybe you are right , maybe she did make a huge mistake and have a baby. But so what, **** her like? Tough luck!? This is an infant child, regardless of the reasons for her having this baby we need to help an innocent helpless child. Is your punishment for her stupidity and carelessness to let her and her child perish on the streets ?

I dunno maybe I'm wrong.

My experiences of this type of thing was the programme a few months back where they followed 3 women living in emergency accommodation and 2 of them got pregnant whilst living in emergency accommodation.

Look the fact is you will never be left out on the streets in this country unless it's your choice and especially if you have a baby.

There is always another side to these stories we never here.

JustTheOne

wakka12 wrote: »

Maybe it was accidental? Maybe the contraception used was faulty?Maybe she couldn't afford to go to england for an abortion then? Maybe she thinks abortions are wrong? Maybe she was able to cater for a baby's needs up until recently but then suddenly lost her job or had family issues?
You know this line gets very tiresome. Its very unlikely that this woman thought it a great idea to just have a baby for the craic under her current circumstances.

And maybe you are right , maybe she did make a huge mistake and have a baby. But so what, **** her like? Tough luck!? This is an infant child, regardless of the reasons for her having this baby we need to help an innocent helpless child. Is your punishment for her stupidity and carelessness to let her and her child perish on the streets ?

No of course not.

It was her who put her baby on the streets, not me or anyone else.

Two Tone

JustTheOne wrote: »

Look the fact is you will never be left out on the streets in this country unless it's your choice and especially if you have a baby.

Are you going to address the reality though that sometimes people's only option for accommodation is an unsafe environment, e.g. FortySeven and eviltwin? The only option of a home they could return to (which was the reason for them not being approved for emergency housing) was such that they opted for being homeless instead.

JustTheOne

Two Tone wrote: »

Are you going to address the reality though that sometimes people's only option for accommodation is an unsafe environment, e.g. FortySeven and eviltwin? The only option of a home they could return to (which was the reason for them not being approved for emergency housing) was such that they opted for being homeless instead.

Yeah you're right, I'm probably way off who knows.

Let's wait until more comes out, surprised it hasn't, anyone hear anymore about it?

wokingvoter

Two Tone wrote: »

So JustTheOne, CaraMay and others, just to get this straight: she could be a scammer (I agree she could - unfortunately some cynicism is justified) but there is utterly no chance whatsoever that she could be genuine. Like, not even a teensy weensy chance, based on... no evidence, just ye deciding it. Is that what you guys are saying?

There is no chance that: contraception failed, that she was in a relationship which ended, that she was desperate enough to stay outside all day with her baby in tow until 12:30 at night because her only accommodation option is an unsafe environment (I take back my questioning of it being deemed cold at night at the moment - last night I was at an outdoor event and it was extremely bloody chilly!), that her circumstances changed drastically beyond her control, that she possibly did not decide "Knock me up - I am skint but I'll get benefits" (you know, this is not ALWAYS what is going through a young sexually active woman's head ), that a homeless shelter is a scary place for them, that she could be a person who will pay all of this back once she is back on her feet? Zero chance whatsoever of any of the above?

Why not leave aside Mary Lou McDonald's political points-scoring, "blame the government" (I don't see how the government is to blame for an individual's circumstances) opportunism and just consider the girl in question and the possibility that she is genuine, and that none of us are immune from falling on hard times. Cynicism is understandable (and necessary) but complete and utter suspicion and hostility and assuming the worst without evidence... do you really want to be one of those kinds of people?

**** the self entitled, "I know my rights" crowd, but I do not want to live in a society where the genuine who have fallen on hard times get lumped in with the self entitled/irresponsible.

Ok. lets say that she is genuinely homeless . Do you believe that AGS, TUSLA , St Vincent de Paul, the HSE, Focus Ireland and all the other State bodies refused to help her baby?

Gatling

Seems it's gone very quite on social media SF supporter's were sharing post's from councillor's asking if they knew anyone willing to take rent allowance for 18 year old single mother and her 4 month old no mention for the partner either

BalcombeSt4

JustTheOne wrote: »

Of course there is.

Doesn't stop the outraged brigade jumping on the bandwagon and blaming enda for these having a baby without any planning ahead.

Are you completly ****ed in the head or something? Just throw 4 month old babies onto the street because 2 naive teenagers didn't use protection.

eviltwin

JustTheOne wrote: »

Yeah you're right, I'm probably way off who knows.

Let's wait until more comes out, surprised it hasn't, anyone hear anymore about it?

I used to work for a domestic violence service and if a refuge was full we would often have callers tell us they were going to sleep in their car or at a garda station, casualty department etc rather than go home. There was a homeless service that we used as a last resort but in most cases couldn't help us because the women had a home, the fact it was unsafe wasn't enough. It doesn't surprise me at all someone would feel safer in a doorway than at home.

JustTheOne

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Are you completly ****ed in the head or something? Just throw 4 month old babies onto the street because 2 naive teenagers didn't use protection.

Who threw a 4 month onto the street?

Fr_Dougal

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Are you completly ****ed in the head or something? Just throw 4 month old babies onto the street because 2 naive teenagers didn't use protection.

If the two adult parents cannot look after the child themselves, and if between them they do not have a family support structure to help them out, the child should be immediately put into foster care.