glutton79:

IncogNeato:

glutton79:

I would agree that being a good parent requires a "certain level of income", but that doesn't mean that level is unreasonably high. We're not talking about designer clothes and mountain bikes and plasma tvs, we're talking about things like food and medical care.

Okay, but my point is still valid. There are plenty of parents who had suffient resources when the kids were born, but perhaps not later. Would we say most of the nation's parents during the Great Depression, for instance, were bad parents?

the problem is, just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you get a free pass. if you get laid off, and your kids don't have food to eat, you're not (at that moment) doing a good job of providing for them. presumably most parents would then do whatever they could to rectify the situation.

I guess it depends on how you're using the term "good parent"- personally, I don't think anyone's good at parenting 100% of the time, and just because you have trouble providing for your kids for awhile doesn't mean you're forever a "bad parent". but feeding and sheltering your kids is a parent's responsibility, and if you're not doing it- for whatever reason- you're not holding up your end of the bargain.

I'm not saying someone is not trying to provide for their children. I'm talking about someone who, due to circumstances legitimately beyond their control, is unable to do so, at least temporarily. To say that they are bad parents simply because of circumstances is irresponsible.

This is assuming, of course, that the parents had reasonable expectations of having the means to support the children and are making concerted efforts after the catastrophe to rectify the situation.