MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

Oldernotwiser

SingleSue wrote: »

It was not my choice to be a single parent, it was the choice of my now ex husband who tired of being a family man after nearly 16 years of marriage (20 years together in total).

All my children were born during that marriage, we both worked during the marriage, we both paid taxes during the marriage.

We could afford the children we had during that marriage...then he had to go and sleep with my best friend!

I am not one who can have another child whilst on benefits, I had a hysterectomy 9 years ago...while still married.

The trouble is, now we no longer have "unmarried mothers" and everybody's lumped under the heading of "lone parents", women like you and DX2 end up fighting the corner of others who are in the situation of having children unsupported and irresponsibly.

There's something to be said for questioning whether some people are more deserving of benefits than others.

Indie_Kid

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The "child related benefits" you talk of, should not be given as cash to the parents, if they don't work at least a 35 hour week if they are single and 70 hours a week jointly for two parents.

The parent(s) would hardly see their children if they did that. My dad did this when I was younger - I was lucky some weeks if I saw him at all.

Yes some single mothers will have been married but the majority won't have been -

Do single fathers not exist?

janninew

sh1305 wrote: »

The parent(s) would hardly see their children if they did that. My dad did this when I was younger - I was lucky some weeks if I saw him at all.



Do single fathers not exist?

Why would the parents hardly see their children if they had to work 35 hours if they are single or 70 hours in a couple? Me and my husband work around 90 hours between us a week and see our daughter plenty, its all about sacrifice.

Oldernotwiser

sh1305 wrote: »

The parent(s) would hardly see their children if they did that. My dad did this when I was younger - I was lucky some weeks if I saw him at all.

I think that the 70 hours referred to both parents working full time, not to one of them working excessive overtime!

Indie_Kid

janninew wrote: »

Why would the parents hardly see their children if they had to work 35 hours if they are single or 70 hours in a couple? Me and my husband work around 90 hours between us a week and see our daughter plenty, its all about sacrifice.

You're lucky then. When my dad worked at the factory, it wasn't unusual to see him for a week. Or a few hours here and a few hours there.

And it was the same when he changed jobs and I was still at school - I would probably see him for about an hour each day and that would be it. Same with mum - she was sleeping when we got home and back at work a few hours later.

MissMoneypenny

DX2 wrote: »

So a friend looked after your child, I'm assuming someone you had known for years? Someone you were happy and comfortable leaving your child with.

When someone moves to a new area, how many years should a parent wait before they let their child go to their new friend's house to play or their friend comes to their house?

tts42010

Actually the average age for a lone parent is 36/37 and the majority had their children within marriage.

The fact that lone parents are young and their baby was concieved in a "throw away" relationship is a common misconception.

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/365/Gingerbread-Factfile

kate2954

Im not convinced that the best place for young children is to be away from their parents( single or in a couple) full time anyway, As a teacher of young children , I have seen the effects of the "creche culture" first hand with children starting lessons at 9 o clock , unable to concentrate as they have been in an over subscribed breakfast club since 7am or crying 3 year olds at 3:30 on a Friday desperate to go home but forced to go to another chaotic childcare provide , being picked up a their bedtime. Surely we should be supporting soceity to ecourage parents to bring up their own children i.e feed them, dress them,clean their teeth, a least part of the time .

moggylover

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Not always a choice, if they are over the threashold for help but have to pay for everything themselves then it means millions of couples have to have both adults working.

Yes some choose to work whilst not essentially financially but you make it sound like a bad thing - sad state of society when a parent working and not taking from the state is seen as wrong.

I don't see it is wrong that a parent does not want to take from the state, however, I see it as VERY wrong that a Country reaches a stage where the cost of housing, etc., escalates so far beyond normal wages that both parents are forced to work in order to keep a roof over their head.

I'm not talking about those where both choose to work because they want a career and a lifestyle AND a child as yet another status symbol, but those who simply cannot even rent and live frugally on one salary and raise a child themselves.

Maybe what the Country really needs to do is face that fact that NOTHING makes any sense anymore and work has become the be all and end all for many. Life is, and should be, about living, and work should just be the thing that provides for that life and not the be all and end all that many seem to think it should be.

When work allows people to fund a reasonable standard of living and still have a family life then I believe most will work. Course, you would need the jobs out there to do in the first place, and employers who perhaps allow for human frailties rather than requiring well oiled robots and who don't want slave labour and such desperate understaffing that they have to get the whip out every time someone needs a little time off:D

Raising a child is one of the fundamental and most natural things we do, and one of the most important jobs that we ever do (although the libbers out there have done there utmost to denigrate it) and yet it is considered so much "less" than a "career" or the two holidays a year, or the BMW.

I actually find it totally abhorent that we now dump tiny babies into nurseries at a few weeks old for others to raise and believe that in "paying for them" we are somehow "better people" or "better examples".

moggylover

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're right, it's gone off topic, but lone parents do often think that their problems are different from couples'.

They are different Older. No ifs, no buts, it is a whole different ball game. There is never anyone else to take the strain. Every decision, every thing that happens is all down to you and you alone and everything that the child wants to do or needs to get to is down to you as well. It's only when that other person has walked out the door that you actually realise just how different a ball game it is and just how massive a job.

Comparing the two is almost as drastic as the difference between being childless and having children in many cases (although I suppose that if your partner is never there or totally useless it might just be easier without them:D - although that was true for me and whilst I thought it would be easier it really wasn't:().

I don't think it is right for those that have not tried to raise a child/children on their own to even try to suggest otherwise. Miles and shoes being the thought that comes to mind.

These threads would go so much better if people actually came asking lone parents what would help them to get back into work, and campaigned to get them that help, instead of just to pontificate on their own opinions (much as they do on the disability threads) about everyone on benefits being a scrounger. Until we get the two sides talking about what is necessary and actually LISTENING to each other then it is all going to be useless and hopeless:(