Daughter leaves colleg & benefits dropped

custardy

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

When I was 11/12 we spent the whole of the day at the swimming pool with friends. Whether or not there was someone at home was irrelevent as we didn't have a phone.

funny you say that
i remember during the miners strike (i would have been 10) spending all summer at the open air pool in Cumnock
it was free for kids as it was a mining area

gizmo111

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If a child is alone at home, who is bullying him/her?

People that know she is home alone and take advnatage of that fact.

Jowo_2

gizmo111 wrote: »

A 13 year old is a vulnerable child and still needs looking after - they are not expected to fend for themselves which is precisely why tax credit contributes to childcare until the age of 15 and child benefit lasts until the age of 19.

Originally single parents were not obligated to return to work until their youngest child reached 12 which was reduced to 10, 7 and is now going to be kick in when the child reaches school age - 5.


Age related vulnerability is a completely irrelevant observation - a lone parent is expected to find employment AND child care.

The days of them staying at home until the child reaches their teens are over. The OP is already in part-time work so this isn't an issue but obviously this change in policy means that lone parents no longer have a choice in this matter, however passionately they feel about being around to look after their children directly or the reasons they give for it.

Oldernotwiser

gizmo111 wrote: »

People that know she is home alone and take advnatage of that fact.

You don't have to allow anyone in if the parent doesn't allow it.

gizmo111

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You don't have to allow anyone in if the parent doesn't allow it.

In an ideal world no you don't but we aretalking about the scenario of a kid being bullied.

custardy

gizmo111 wrote: »

In an ideal world no you don't but we aretalking about the scenario of a kid being bullied.

so we should all stay home just in case?

Indie_Kid

custardy wrote: »

so we should all stay home just in case?

Clearly!

I was regularly left home with my brother (2 years old) & sister (2 years younger) from the age of 11. The only exception being a non-pupil day in October when I was in year 7 - that was because I was ill and had been up most of the night.

Oldernotwiser

gizmo111 wrote: »

In an ideal world no you don't but we aretalking about the scenario of a kid being bullied.

Bullying is the exception rather than the norm, even these days.

Googlewhacker

Jowo wrote: »

The OP is already in part-time work so this isn't an issue but obviously this change in policy means that lone parents no longer have a choice in this matter, however passionately they feel about being around to look after their children directly or the reasons they give for it.

Thankfully....

fluffymovie

Personally, I get quite irked that people choose part time work over full time when they have children of a certain age. I don't know the OP circs but her response about not asking for advice on FTW was also a bit stroppy IMHO. By all means, let us advise you on benefits you can claim from the tax payer but don't let us offend you by advising you to try increasing your hours at work and therefore claim less benefits.

However, from the perspective of correctly advising about benefits. You would cease to qualify for Ctax benefit if your income was considered too high now. however, you can apply for 2nd Adult Rebate which would be up to 25% discount on the basis that your 2nd adult has a low income which may be the case if she only works part time. However, if you were already on CTB at the time you notified the council of the change, they should have re-assessed your claim and considered a better buy to see if this applies, however I would check with them