"16 Kids and Counting" - how do they afford it?

notanewuser

southcoastrgi wrote: »

I haven't read the blog but someone above said he was 17 & she was 14 when the first child was born, therefore he could have been 16 or 17 (both over the age of consent) & she could have been 13 or 14, if the female is under 16 & the male is over 16 then it can be classed as statutory rape although if the ages are close it rarely is, if it is the other way around & the male is under 16 & the female over 16 it is classed as sexual assault, so yes it does apply if the police had wanted to persue it although of course the time has long past for that.

There is very nearly 4 years between them. He was 17 when they got together, she 13. She fell pregnant at 13, had the child at 14. It's not clear whether he was still 17 when baby arrived or 18.

Spendless

According to this article (first one I found when googling) she was 14 when she became pregnant. It doesn't say if she was 14 or 15 when the child was born.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4660141/mum-has-baby-number-16.html

notanewuser

http://www.theradfordfamily.co.uk/planning-our-20th-wedding-anniversary-get-away/

http://www.theradfordfamily.co.uk/how-our-family-has-grow/

barbarawright

coolcait wrote: »

Ages at time of the birth of the child..

It is possible that the father was also under the age of 16 at the time of conception. If the mother was over the age of 13 at the time of conception - which seems likely, if she was 14 at the time of birth - then "statutory rape" may not apply.

As I said, you'd be amazed (or not) at what people get up to sexually.

I'm childless myself so not an expert but if the father was 17 at the time of the first child's birth, he's fairly unlikely to have been 15 at the time of its conception (unless my biology teacher was lying to me)

BAGGY

I watched the programme. I was astonished to see that all their grocery items appeared to be brands. Not even asda own or savers value stuff.
I waited 20 years to have my children (at 42) as we were not well off enough to provide for them as I would've liked, and I dont mean Gap and Next clothing as most of their things are second hand. I was then made redundant. OH is now a high bracket tax payer (having worked hit nutz off ) so not only will he be paying more money into the 'pot' to support these huge families, I will lose my child benefit which was treats and uniform fund. Not luxuries like holidays or new buggies.
I cant justify spending money on branded ketchup and crisps etc and that's just for the twins so how can they buy pillow case sized bags of walkers crisps for pack lunches. I also noticed they bought sliced ham in a pack. That's got to be £2 a pack hasn't it? They would be better off cooking chicken breasts from their butcher. Or maybe money isn't an issue for them?????
Rant over...........

fluffysox

I'm sure tax credits play a big part in their income. I'm also sure they would pay very little tax. I also think this is true of many families with self employed parents. The current system is very unfair in this respect even without any undeclared income.
However remember the tv show will also provide some income. Enough to pay for the holiday they are planning or for the Asian Philosopher to buy some flat pack furniture.
Personally I enjoyed this programme and respect the couple for building a strong marriage and family life. They both work hard.
The second family- the man is overqualified for most jobs. There aren't many jobs for philosophy teachers- the philosophy teacher at our school was one of the first to be made redundant in this era of massive budget cuts. In addition I don't believe he would prefer to be out at work instead of home with his kids despite how his wife feels. Lets face it tho- he isn't going to get a job sending out generic scruffy application letters or by turning up in clothes which are covered in stains. If I believed he actually wanted to work I'd say he needs to look in the mirror but honestly I think he is happy as he is.

jamesmorgan

southcoastrgi wrote: »

Because he was over the age of 16 & she was 14 therefore he is guilty of statutory rape, yes there are the Romeo and Juliet laws however all this means is the sentance would be less than it normally would however the charge is still the same, it also makes no difference in law if she was a willing partner or not.

I don't think that that is quite true. In the UK (Sexual Offences Act 2003), a child under the age of 13 is deemed to be unable to give consent. So if she engages in sex, a charge of rape on the male is made - whatever age they are. Sentencing guidelines would suggest a lower sentence for a male child guilty of rape. "Statutory rape" is not a term used in UK law.

Having sex with a child under the age of 16 (or 18 if from a person in a position of trust) is treated as a crime of unlawful sex. Sentencing guidelines suggest lower sentences if the offender (male or female) is under the age of 18. In practice the police have better things to be doing with their time and would be very unlikely to prosecute 2 under 18 year-olds having sex (unless one was under 13).

retepetsir

zagfles wrote: »

The current tax credits came in in April 2003. Before that it was the WFTC which was similar amount (at the time, but over the last 10 years tax credits have increased massively), and before that it was Family Credit.

16 kids on a £30k income would get £38577 a year in tax credits! Plus £11507 in child ben. So that's over £50k tax free in addition to their earnings. And the benefit cap wouldn't apply as they are in work.

It said right at the beginning 'boosted by £160 a week child benefit'.

Surely that's not right for 16 kids?!

Spendless

retepetsir wrote: »

It said right at the beginning 'boosted by £160 a week child benefit'.

Surely that's not right for 16 kids?!

According to the earlier link, the eldest was born may 89 making him 23, so too old to claim for. The next Sophie is the one who I think has just had the baby and is 19 (born Dec 93) so unlikely to be able to claim for her. The 3rd born was Chloe was is 17 and am unsure if she is working or not. That leaves 13 children that they are able to claim CB for at £20 for the eldest on the claim and around £13ish for the others.

zagfles

Spendless wrote: »

According to the earlier link, the eldest was born may 89 making him 23, so too old to claim for. The next Sophie is the one who I think has just had the baby and is 19 (born Dec 93) so unlikely to be able to claim for her. The 3rd born was Chloe was is 17 and am unsure if she is working or not. That leaves 13 children that they are able to claim CB for at £20 for the eldest on the claim and around £13ish for the others.

So that would be £181pw child ben. Tax credits for 13 children on a £30k income would be £30507pa, ie £587pw. Total £768pw. Almost £40k per year tax free on top of their earnings.