Just let the great grandparents bring it up, after all they will probably only be in their early to mid forties.

I love all you have said on this threads as to this, so I won't add anything to it.

I agree with you, it is unfortunate it happened, the parents likely should have been more 'interested' in their children's relationship together.

However, they could prove to be good parents long term and although they need to have their education,it could well be that this child gets one of the soundest upbringings so no reason at all to take the child off them.

Obviously time will tell but as you pointed out you know someone who had a child at 15,people mature at different times.
These are likely to get a good lot of support from outside and inside their families,they seem to want to keep their relationship going and also be involved with the baby too.

Although it is sad this happened in the first place,I say good luck to them and this could even be a greater spur to them to both seek to do a lot more with their lives as to careers and education too,to not only for them but also helping in the building a strong future for this baby.

I agree Joey it shouldn't have happened but it did,and who knows they might make really good parents ,lets hope so.

I listen to 'Heart' radio.. ( well I like it :idc: ) the father of the mother rang in recently and gave his side to the story, he reiterated it wasn't an ideal scenario but the family would rally. He seemed really stressed and upset about the condemnation the family had received, what a shame people have to be so judgemental.

The baby looks like Kim Jong un

Congrats

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...73_634x625.jpg

[Caravan of love: Britain's youngest parents enjoyed
romantic beach break together just a month before
their baby was born and gave each
other 'True Love' bracelets
Mother, 12, and father, 13, became UK's youngest parents
last weekend
Pair took a break together in Clacton-on-Sea
a month before the birth
Stayed in caravan, bought a True Love bracelet,
and wrote names on beach]


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2zLFN14X4


Life In The Fast Lane

If they keep up this tradition they could be great great grandparents in their 50s.

Repulsive

Hopefully that child's upbringing won't be affected.

I'm not defending it but they're clearly sexually mature for their respective ages, they're definitely not children.

aw how romantic

Yes some young are that far ahead.

A twelve year old gives birth and people are accused of being 'judgemental'. Whatever next?

I mean I doubt they're ready for the responsibility of it, but then nothing can prepare you for what parenthood is like until you have a baby, no matter what age you are - but people terming the parents as 'children' I think is just simply incorrect. Children are not capable of having children. Young adults would be the term I'd go with.

I think 'children' is pretty appropriate for a pre teen, she was still in bloody primary school when she conceived

If she's capable of getting pregnant by a boy of a similar age, I would not call them children. Obviously their actual ages is what's clouding this issue but there's no way I'd call someone a 'child' if they've hit puberty.

There's been cases of people having kids when they're as young as 8 or 9 though, maybe even younger, I don't think that being capable of conception alone means you are no longer a child

Edit - according to wiki the youngest ever mother was 5 years old

I'd class being a child as being pre-pubescent. If you've not hit puberty but you're 13 or older, you're a teenager. It's obviously a grey area and totally pedantic :laugh: but I just don't think it's correct to call this couple children if they're capable of having a baby together.

:umm2: So, if an 8 year old girl is able to release an egg then she's not a child any more? :joker:

Arguably, yeah. Childhood isn't a definitive period of time that begins and ends on a certain date, neither is being a teenager or an adult. It's a transition that starts subtly and you only notice when the transition has finished. Generally speaking the word is used to describe pre-teens, because being a teenager is associated with puberty and transitioning into an adult. If somebody hits puberty earlier than most others, then they've started that transition earlier. I mean I'd probably still refer to that person as a child regardless of if they've hit puberty at the age of 8 or not but if that 8 year old got pregnant and had a baby, then no, I don't think it would be correct to keep referring to them as a child. Children don't have children.

An 11/12 year old is not the same as a 7 or 9 year old, it's a preteen :conf2: far more closer to a 13/14 year old

And those cases of 5 year olds or whatever getting pregnant are one off cases, so I don't know why people are debating over that lol

My best friend hit puberty when he was in primary 6, he'd have been 10 years old. I didn't hit puberty until I was 14. His voice had deepened etc. We may have been the same age (we met when we were 12) but we were definitely not at the same point in life, biologically speaking. :shrug:

I'm not sure how to feel about this story. It's all a bit sad. Chances are it might not end well but if they end up giving it a go at parenting the child in their teen years then they have a lot more guts and ****ing balls than a lot of the people who indicted them, I'll say that much.

My heart goes out to them. Can't be easy. Obviously never, ever should have happened.

Oh and the baby should definitely not be taken away