MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

moggylover

Must go now, my children are due home;):D

looby75

FBaby wrote: »

How is that any different to couples? Most mothers have the exact same problem, with their partner not able to pick kids up and they have to either find a job that fits around whatever childcare provision there is available, or they find childcare that fits around their job. Yet it's amazing how many mothers in couple are managing to do that.... Most of my female colleagues are mothers of young children and almost all of them have sole responsibility for taking and picking them up from different childcare providers. Somehow, they are managing to find ways around problems that so many single parents seem to face without solutions.

before ex left I worked part time, but only because ex looked after our children while I did (I worked weekends and evenings, he worked days), the child care situation was the same then as it is now abysmal.

The difference is there was another person there to help with childcare, now I'm on my own it's ALL up to me. If my child is sick I'M the only one who can look after him, if the school closes for any reason, I'M the only one to go and pick him up, when he's on holiday I'M the only person with only one set of annual leave to cover it.

You say that married mothers manage.....yes in a lot of areas they do, if there is childcare available, but in areas that there aren't they struggle too. Also the chances are that if they are in a stable relationship there will be 2 sets of extended family to help out, in a lot of lone parents cases they don't just lose their ex partners support but the support of their family too so don't have that extra support/childcare option.

FBaby

but surely, if childcare is not available, it is time to consider moving somewhere where it is? I'm not talking about 100s of miles away, but in the closest bigger town if leaving in the country. As I've said, most mothers I work with have sole responsibility for dealing with their children and don't rely on their parents (in many cases who work themselves) and have to find ways around the usual problems of school closure/child being sick etc...

In any case, lone parents are not FORCED to work, they are expected to look for it. Surely even if there is a small chance of finding a flexible job, children friendly, it is worth looking for it? Or is it a case of 'there is nothing there, so no point bothering trying'? When I applied for my job when my second child was 5 months old, I was asked in the interview if I was sure I wanted to work full-time as it would absolutely fine if I wanted to do 4 days. I'm not the one who brought it up, they did. These jobs DO exist but you have to look for them.

looby75

FBaby wrote: »

but surely, if childcare is not available, it is time to consider moving somewhere where it is? I'm not talking about 100s of miles away, but in the closest bigger town if leaving in the country. As I've said, most mothers I work with have sole responsibility for dealing with their children and don't rely on their parents (in many cases who work themselves) and have to find ways around the usual problems of school closure/child being sick etc...

In any case, lone parents are not FORCED to work, they are expected to look for it. Surely even if there is a small chance of finding a flexible job, children friendly, it is worth looking for it? Or is it a case of 'there is nothing there, so no point bothering trying'? When I applied for my job when my second child was 5 months old, I was asked in the interview if I was sure I wanted to work full-time as it would absolutely fine if I wanted to do 4 days. I'm not the one who brought it up, they did. These jobs DO exist but you have to look for them.

moving even just a few miles away can be very expensive and not at all possible in some cases, as I've already described in this thread. Private landlords expect a lot of money up front and even more won't accept LHA.

Most lone parents DO work, and the majority of the rest want to work and are looking. I know I was long before I started having to claim JSA. I know how rare the school time etc jobs are because I have been looking for them and applying for anything I can for quite a while now.

nottslass_2

FBaby wrote: »

How is that any different to couples? Most mothers have the exact same problem, with their partner not able to pick kids up and they have to either find a job that fits around whatever childcare provision there is available, or they find childcare that fits around their job. Yet it's amazing how many mothers in couple are managing to do that.... Most of my female colleagues are mothers of young children and almost all of them have sole responsibility for taking and picking them up from different childcare providers. Somehow, they are managing to find ways around problems that so many single parents seem to face without solutions.

As a Working mum of an 8 year old and 11 month old I can assure you that having a partner DOES make a lot of the difference.

As an example the Baby was very ill with bronchiolitis just after I returned to work and there were 5 occasions when either one of us were required to take time off or leave work to look after him - I'm sorry but even the most understanding employer is going to get annoyed if a single parent was continually absent due to their child being ill,but at least in my case there were 2 of us to share the responsibility.
I also had to take the time off unpaid,which would have meant us literally starving if I hadn't had a partner to support me !!!!!


Incidentally if I was to find myself a single parent I would have to leave my present job as there is no way I'd be able to get to work on time (due to child care arrangements) and there is a shortage of childcare in my area so it wouldn't be possible to change childcare provider. There is a "breakfast club " and after school club but the breakfast club doesn't start till 8 am and thats the time I have to start work (an hour away)

FBaby

but this is no different to an employer than if they'd recruited someone who had health issues. Many employers ARE understanding as long as you show willingness to work hard. When my kids caught chickenpox, one after the other, I also had to take a lot of time of work. I took whatever work I could do from home, and the following weeks, I worked later hours as much as possible within childcare to make sure I finished what I couldn't do during the time off. I believe I went and work the following saturday. My boss appreciated that I was making all these efforts and took my job seriously and in return, he has always been very understanding of my position. Employers want people who work hard and show their commitment. Being a single parent has nothing to do with it. You could be single and have family to help, or you could be in a couple, but partner works away during the week and can't help and there is no one to help. An employer takes a chance that there will be issues with employing childbearing age mothers no matter what, thankfully, most still employ them.

moggylover

FBaby wrote: »

If choice is to be encouraged, it is to be equitable. Why should single parent have that choice, but working parents who can't afford to have one stay at home not be given this choice? Why is the society rewarding (by giving the benefit of choice) the singles, but not those who are working hard and still providing the best to children (by giving them the chance to leave with both their parents).

The reality is that society can't afford to allow all mothers (and those fathers who want to SAH) to stay at home, it is simply not financially plausible as this can be a choice if enough people work and contribute towards NI, so again, why should it allow some to have that choice but not the others?

I believe that it should be equitable, and that support should (as it indeed is at the moment) be available to assist with one SAHP for the very small child whether they have one parent or two.

However, in VERY many cases it is completely possible for two parent families to either have only one parent working, or both working shorter hours but they might have to make changes to their lifestyles. Want less things, less "stuff" and give greater importance to the really important things in life.

For one partnered mum that I know who swore they "needed" both of them at work who subsequently lost her job and had difficulty finding another one, the things that they went without were not at all important to the upbringing of their children. She stopped running a car for herself and they shared the car (he arranged for a friend to pick him up if she wanted the car for the day), she stopped going clothes shopping every few weeks, stayed out of the home and wear sections and cosmetics sections whilst in supermarkets and stopped "popping in" to Boots in her lunchtime and choosing the most expensive cosmetics. They went on one holiday abroad instead of two, and because she had more time she started to utilise cheaper cuts of meat (with my help because she hadn't a clue what to do with them) and make home cooked meals that were far more nutritious than much of what they had eaten before. They also cut down on take-aways.

Not much of a loss at all to them. A loss to a wasteful and shallow economy I suppose, but one which they decided provided a far better WAY of living for all of them. That was some years ago, my friend now runs her own very small part-time business: catering for other peoples' dinner parties because she found she loved cooking.


ETA: they could also go about it my own way and bust a gut earning as much as they could and buying a home early on so that they had half the expenditure to face when the kids came. My mortgage was well under £100 per month by the time I had my kids, and even 15 years ago that plus frugal living would have made it easy for my ex and I to support our household without working full time.

nottslass_2

FBaby wrote: »

but this is no different to an employer than if they'd recruited someone who had health issues. Many employers ARE understanding as long as you show willingness to work hard. When my kids caught chickenpox, one after the other, I also had to take a lot of time of work. I took whatever work I could do from home, and the following weeks, I worked later hours as much as possible within childcare to make sure I finished what I couldn't do during the time off. I believe I went and work the following saturday. My boss appreciated that I was making all these efforts and took my job seriously and in return, he has always been very understanding of my position. Employers want people who work hard and show their commitment. Being a single parent has nothing to do with it. You could be single and have family to help, or you could be in a couple, but partner works away during the week and can't help and there is no one to help. An employer takes a chance that there will be issues with employing childbearing age mothers no matter what, thankfully, most still employ them.

If an employer recuited someone with health issues they'd have to pay SSP (at least) A lone parent forced to take unpaid time of work will still have to pay child care fees but unlike a two parent family there is no other income to help buffer the inpact.

With the best will in the world I fail to see how a lone parent can afford take 2 to 3 weeks off work (unpaid) to care for pox riddled DC's and still pay childcare bills,and put food on the table,pay the bills etc


I'm a public sector worker who has only taken 2 weeks sick leave in the last 6 years ,have never been late for work and always work hard ,but despite this I still was made to feel guilty for leaving work (unpaid) on 2 occasions for a sick baby.

You are fortunate to have a great employer but I can assure you that there aren't many employers who'd be understanding if their employees had to take 3 weeks off to care for DC's with chicken pox and although you were able to make some time up by working the following Saturday its not a viable option for a lone parent to make time up due to child care issues (cost and availability)

moggylover

Sixer wrote: »

Exactly.



But perhaps it could, if we stopped focusing on individuals and started focusing on outside factors, as I argued earlier in this thread, and indeed, as this thread started out - about childcare provision for ALL who choose it, not just single parents and/or benefits claimants.

As I said earlier also, housing costs are a huge factor here. Government economic policy, both from the previous administration and this one, so it's not a party political matter, has been to try to preserve house prices. Why is this? Why are housing costs as a proportion of income so much more than they were 40 years ago? We have a lot more "things" to buy these days, with technology as it is.

I just want to know why people on this thread insist on knocking seven bells out of one another but refuse to almost a man to look at other issues that affect the way we finance parenting in this country.

I quite agree Sixer, I have long since argued that we need to look at making work pay better/housing cost less, etc., so that people actually can have more choice about how they parent AND more importantly so that even if you are not a parent you need not spend the vast majority of your adult life just working to keep the wolf from the door.

seven-day-weekend

moggylover wrote: »

It doesn't (and most definitely shouldn't) take two parents working full time and leaving the care of their children to others (paid or otherwise) to teach a work ethic, and nor should it take both of them working full time in order to realise what earning money covers, or for them to benefit from having a home, food, etc. If the cost of living is so extreme that it does take two parents working full-time to keep a roof over heads then Society needs to address this because it certainly should not be something that is considered the ideal.

My boys know exactly how hard I worked to have a home that was almost entirely paid for (and furnished, although not all new as I wanted, and had, no debt beyond a VERY small mortgage) before they were considered so that my partner and I could parent without dumping them into childcare or making them go without. They both know the benefit of earning money and paying their way, and they also know the benefit of strong familiale ties and loyalties and community spirit and team committment: things which a lot of their friends really do have trouble grasping because their own parents don't appear to have them. My entire aim had been that neither of us would have to be at work so many hours that we had to pay others to do the hands on jobs that were our responsibility in child rearing, and that both of us would have sufficient time to spend with them on activities (and the support of said activities) even if it meant that they sometimes had less "things".

I do sincerely believe that our Society has "lost the plot" these days, and that we are all too easily persuaded to think of life as being entirely about "work" and not about life at all. The media has certainly managed to hoodwink a very large number of supposedly intelligent people if we are willing to sign up to the idea that work should be the be all and end all of life instead of a means to an end imo.

I also do not think that anything much about Society has truly improved since I was a child, and certainly find that people are far more selfish and far less willing to lend a hand to each other now than they were then.

Another brilliant post Moggylover.

We did similar, we were married for nearly ten years before our son was born and we kept a cheap house with a really small mortgage so that one of us could stay at home with him while he was small.

I agree it does not have to be the mother. It could be either, or both parents sharing. But what you have to do is manage on the equivalent of one wage so that whether it is one parent earning it full-time, or two part-time, then the parents themselves can provide the care.

We did without a car, bought clothes from jumble sales and had a lodger so that one of us could stay at home with our son. If there are two of you it can be done with a bit of planning.

I appreciate it is not necessarily possible for a single parent.