Girlfriend's pregnant...

NYM

IntriguedUser wrote: »

Hi, I'm 21 and my girlfriend is 17, and she's pregnant. She's decided she's keeping it, and I said I'll offer my support whichever option she decided to take in relation to the baby.

I'm not sure what to do, I live at home with my mum and sister, and there's no space here, and her mum kicked her out, so she's been homeless for a couple of months, she stayed at mine for a month, and has been swapping between close friends for the other time.

Where do we go to enquire about housing, I'm clueless when it comes to council housing/benefits, she will be 18 by the time she has the baby, meaning we? or she? Can apply for council housing. Her gran has allowed her to stay in a spare room at hers, but she was adamant that its not a permanent thing.

She's jobless and I work full-time as a Bus Driver.

Any advice appreciated,

Kind regards,

Save like mad for a deposit and first few months on a private rental in an area you'd like to live in.

Although your girlfriend may indeed be a priority case, your local authority may not have suitable accommodation available soon enough. She might even be offered a flat in an area well away from where she currently lives.

Dird

marksoton wrote: »

Chuck loads at the poor hard working people who've just flooded i say. And far less at a young irresponsible couple who clearly want to play the system.

I think people are pretty irresponsible to decide to buy a house right next to a river at the bottom of a hill. Especially in the areas that seem to flood every few years

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Cherie Booth was a practising Roman Catholic at the time, not something we know about the OP's girlfriend.

99.999% of catholics/christians are fakers who choose what scripture they want to follow. Don't remember seeing Cherie covering her hair much

Mrs_Imp

leveller2911 wrote: »

There is a difference Gwylim and that is the majority of us (working class ) would have worked for a good few years and paid into the tax system whereas the OP is 21 and unlikely to have paid much in and his GF is 17........

My wife was 30 and I was 29 when we had our 1st child so Big difference ..........

You 'paid into the tax system' before you had a child, the OPs GF will 'pay into the tax system' once she's had her baby. Think about it, they will be 23 and 27 when the child goes to school, and 36 and 40 when the child leaves home. That's a whole lot of working years left. One of my friends had a baby when she was a teenager. Her child is all grown up and left home. My friend started her career when she was early 20s and has been able to work ever since without having to take a break for maternity leave. I'll be late 30s once my children are at school, and probably mid 50s when they leave home. I've taken time off right in the middle of my career, which has stalled as a result (not that I would change my children for anything). When I think about it, I'd love to be young and fit when my children leave home rather than tired and older.

With the right amount of support, the OPs and his GF will only have the same amount of time off from 'paying into the system' as everyone else who has a baby, they're just having it at the beginning rather than in the middle or at the end of their careers.

marksoton

Dird wrote: »

I think people are pretty irresponsible to decide to buy a house right next to a river at the bottom of a hill. Especially in the areas that seem to flood every few years

Agreed.

But i do not equate infrastructure spending with the whims of a 17 year old.

mumps

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The one thing that can be said here is OP is trying to sort the situation out and plan and I feel sorry for him for having a girlfriend that hasn't done an equivalent amount of planning. I think he earns distinct brownie points for trying to sort out a situation he personally hasn't had any say in and saying he will support this non-planner girlfriend whatever she decides.

Some young guys deserve a lot better "press" than they get and I've sat there on a bus before now overhearing a conversation between two young guys (both of whom were too young to be parents) and hearing one of them telling the other one he was keeping his money for the child his girlfriend had decided to have/or not "planned" against having anyway. He was being a lot kinder to her than I would have been - as my first reaction would have been to be livid with her that she had taken my share of the decision-making, as well as her own share of said decision-making and imposed this situation on me.

So - yep - poor OP and I do feel sorry for him that she has done this.

Are you assuming these young men were raped? The girls didn't manage to get pregnant without some help you know.

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Cherie Booth was a practising Roman Catholic at the time, not something we know about the OP's girlfriend.

Didn't she say somewhere that they did normally use contraception but they were embarrassed to take any with them as they were staying with the Queen? I don't think being a Roman Catholic had much to do with it.

melanzana

There is a lot of judgmental stuff going on in this thread.

High horses and all that.

It's not the first time, nor will it be the last that something like this has happened to a couple. Many surmount it. I think this couple will too. I wish them the best of luck.

missbiggles1

Dird wrote: »

I think people are pretty irresponsible to decide to buy a house right next to a river at the bottom of a hill. Especially in the areas that seem to flood every few years



99.999% of catholics/christians are fakers who choose what scripture they want to follow. Don't remember seeing Cherie covering her hair much

You're thinking of Orthodox Jews, not female Roman Catholics.

Poppie68

marksoton wrote: »

Precious?!

It's my bloody money and i'd far rather it was spent on better things.

Chuck loads at the poor hard working people who've just flooded i say. And far less at a young irresponsible couple who clearly want to play the system.

And FYI i've never claimed CTC.WTC or CB.

I knew this thread would end up as a bun fight but time and again you've been logically disproved. Even by your own posts. Give it up.

If anything it's disingenuous to genuine claimants.

How is it clear this couple want to place the system?... he was only asking for advice on housing he never mentioned benefits, again another assumption without basis.

Logically disproved???? All I see is a thread based on total assumptions, by all of us.

Person_one

marksoton wrote: »

Precious?!

It's my bloody money and i'd far rather it was spent on better things.

Chuck loads at the poor hard working people who've just flooded i say. And far less at a young irresponsible couple who clearly want to play the system.

And FYI i've never claimed CTC.WTC or CB.

I knew this thread would end up as a bun fight but time and again you've been logically disproved. Even by your own posts. Give it up.

If anything it's disingenuous to genuine claimants.

Plenty of people think the victims of the floods who didn't have any insurance are irresponsible and don't deserve any public money (I don't feel that way). There's always somebody willing to judge and condemn, which is why it would be a terrible idea for us all to be able to choose where our taxes are spent!