17 and pregnant, not entitled to benefits?

killiebabe

WICCANLOU

thanx much appreciated x

elvis86

killiebabe wrote: »

why should her mum and dad be ashamed???

Why, as you ranted, should the goverment be ashamed? Whilst there may be not a lot that her parents could've done to prevent her getting into the mess she's in, they are certainly more responsible for their daughter than the goverment!

killiebabe wrote: »

shes 17 shes an adult and its her life to do with what she pleases!

If she's a competent adult making her own choices, why does she have nowehere to live, no job and no money, and why are you here seeking out what benefits she can get? She and her boyfriend are irresponsible kids who have decided to have a baby despite neither of them having the means to support it or themselves. Don't try and dress it up as anything else.

killiebabe wrote: »

nor do i expect to put up with cheeky disrespectful quotes from people like you .

IF YOUVE NOT GOT ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE AND HELPFUL TO SAY ... DONT SPEAK!!

Tough.

Miss_Havisham

I have a foot in both camps. The young girl and BF weren't responsible and now can't afford to be. Neither set of parents want/can afford to be responsible for housing or paying for them. Taxpayers have no say in how much responsibililty they have to shoulder for the young couple.

On the other hand we are talking about the lives of 3 people including an unborn child and the main concern is to ensure they are kept safe. My parents brought me up to believe that the welfare state was set up to help people in dire straits through no fault of their own until they can get themselves sorted and able to support themselves.

The most obvious solution would be for the son to live with his parents and the step-daughter to move back to her father and step-mum's home. This need be only short term until either can get a job and or improve their level of education. The young couple won't be happy at this but it would ensure that their baby is born into a safe and loving environment, albeit without the constant presence of his/her dad. A reasonable compromise ?

Miss H

elvis86

Miss_Havisham wrote: »

I have a foot in both camps. The young girl and BF weren't responsible and now can't afford to be. Neither set of parents want/can afford to be responsible for housing or paying for them. Taxpayers have no say in how much responsibililty they have to shoulder for the young couple.

On the other hand we are talking about the lives of 3 people including an unborn child and the main concern is to ensure they are kept safe. My parents brought me up to believe that the welfare state was set up to help people in dire straits through no fault of their own until they can get themselves sorted and able to support themselves.

The most obvious solution would be for the son to live with his parents and the step-daughter to move back to her father and step-mum's home. This need be only short term until either can get a job and or improve their level of education. The young couple won't be happy at this but it would ensure that their baby is born into a safe and loving environment, albeit without the constant presence of his/her dad. A reasonable compromise ?

Miss H

Why on earth should this young couple be seperated?! They have rights!

They should be given a 3 bedroomed council house (in case they have a second child and become "overcrowded"), grants to buy a designer buggy etc, and substantial benefits to live on.

They are adults and they were entitled to make the choice to have a child (it's their life, their choice etc). However they obviously cannot be held responsible for this choice and expected to "suffer" the consequences (eg having to live apart), so the state should bail them out and see them right whilst ensuring that in no way are they inconvenienced (of course).

rotoguys

wattdallas wrote: »

:eek:

The interests of the child is to be with the mother

I know it is, but back in the 50's & 60's new borns were taken from their mothers without permission and put up for adoption.

This was mainly carried out by the Roman Catholic Mother & Baby homes where they were sent to have the baby away from the eyes of the rest of the world!

rotoguys

killiebabe wrote: »

oh i totally agree they should have planned things better in a ideal world as its always the parents who are left to pick up the pieces and bail them out!!!..

my hubby has been great with his daughter n helped her out financially alot recently but we cant keep it going long term or wel end up with no money left..

Hey been there, done it with my two daughters and am still doing it and they are 31!!!

rotoguys

elvis86 wrote: »

Why, as you ranted, should the goverment be ashamed? Whilst there may be not a lot that her parents could've done to prevent her getting into the mess she's in, they are certainly more responsible for their daughter than the goverment!



If she's a competent adult making her own choices, why does she have nowehere to live, no job and no money, and why are you here seeking out what benefits she can get? She and her boyfriend are irresponsible kids who have decided to have a baby despite neither of them having the means to support it or themselves. Don't try and dress it up as anything else.



Tough.

You don't happen to be related to Jeremy Kyle by any chance?

rotoguys

elvis86 wrote: »

Why on earth should this young couple be seperated?! They have rights!

They should be given a 3 bedroomed council house (in case they have a second child and become "overcrowded"), grants to buy a designer buggy etc, and substantial benefits to live on.

They are adults and they were entitled to make the choice to have a child (it's their life, their choice etc). However they obviously cannot be held responsible for this choice and expected to "suffer" the consequences (eg having to live apart), so the state should bail them out and see them right whilst ensuring that in no way are they inconvenienced (of course).

That's a tad bit sarcastic and totally uncalled for.

As a caring society, society has taken upon itself to help those that can't help themselves.

As for the 'designer buggy' - you can get all manner of designer baby equipment and clothes off Ebay at very reasonable prices.

So there is no need to buy a new 'Poundland' pram, when a much better quality designer one is cheaper!

You can see those on here that never experimented with sex at an early age and those that had their first encounter in their late teens.

It doesn't take a lot to make a baby no matter how young or old you are!

killiebabe

elvis86 wrote: »

Why, as you ranted, should the goverment be ashamed? Whilst there may be not a lot that her parents could've done to prevent her getting into the mess she's in, they are certainly more responsible for their daughter than the goverment!



If she's a competent adult making her own choices, why does she have nowehere to live, no job and no money, and why are you here seeking out what benefits she can get? She and her boyfriend are irresponsible kids who have decided to have a baby despite neither of them having the means to support it or themselves. Don't try and dress it up as anything else.



Tough.

the goverment should be ashamed as all they seem to do lately is look for ways to take money off of people.. rather than help them whilst they are in need, till they get back on there feet.





and if you read my earlier posts you will see she has a place to live!! and has a seasonal job , which aint due to start till next month... and yes they chose to have a baby... so what? and im entitled to ask advice on here if i wish , as im not from england and dont no english practice. do you CRITICISE everyone on here ? for the choices they make in life? because you dont agree with them?

im only looking for advice as to what, if anything shes entitled too...
NOT SARCASTIC COMMENTS FROM YOU

RAS

Hi

The benefits board is home to a lot of benefit bashers despite Martin's pleas. it is one of the nastiest forums on MSE.

If you find someones post insulting, do not feed them, just report their post (that little red triangele thing) and put them on ignore.