If the definition of childhood poverty is children of households with lowest income then education of potential parents in those income brackets to make them aware and understand that any child born into the household will live in poverty and the parents should think long and hard on whether they should have children or on the size of their family.
Many dual income families debate the financial impact of going from 1 to 2 children or 2 to 3 children extensively due to childcare costs, the financial impact of one parent stopping work, etc etc. But if your family income is less than 60% of the national median should your debate be on going from 0 to 1 child.
This report uses both the household income model and the Material deprivation model, which are 5 items, arrers on bills, inability to keep the home warm, unable to take a 1 week holiday away from home, unable to replace old furniture, and having no money to spend on yourself. This report also says the number of children living in poverty is stable (unlike Niall Muldoon in the summer school).
The first report I mentioned says childhood poverty is costing the state €4.5 billion so I would definitely be pushing the education of delaying having children until you can afford it. There have been great strides in this, teenage pregnancies are way down, free contraceptive pill for women etc. and then when kids are born, free medical care, hot school lunches, etc.
But maybe more potential parents should be educated on the potential of their child being born into poverty and they not being able to go on an annual holiday among other things? If I had been asked to define childhood poverty I would have thought that hunger, lack of adequate clothing, and lack of shelter, and lack of health care and access to education would be the criteria but it is not my area of expertise. Families can have adequate income but addiction by the parents can still result in child neglect and poverty.