to wonder where you are going to put the children?

[Unacceptable]

I read on here (and hear in RL) so often the delightful phrase

"don't have children if you can't afford them" or some similar line, always when putting down families who claim benefits.

Parents who at one time could afford to have DC but then through a change in circumstance: be it a DH deciding he'd actually rather bugger off and live the life of Riley without contributing towards his DC (my situation) or a DH being diagnosed with a terminal illness (close friend) can no longer support DC without some assistance shouldn't have those DC as they can't afford them?

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

[wongadotmom]

You could use them as a cheap alternative to turkey at Christmas

[wongadotmom]

Sorry about your situation op I didn't read properly before posting

[WorraLiberty]

I've never heard it said to people who already had children and then experienced a change of circumstance.

I've only heard it said to people who have no intention of earning a living and yet continue to have babies.

[TWinklyLittleStar]

What worra said. I've only ever seen people whose circumstances change for the worse be offered kindness and support. And surely it makes sense to not take on any major financial commitment that you know in advance you can't afford, be it children, a mortgage or something else?

[zeeboo]

I've never known anyone say that to someone who has had an unexpected change of circumstances. It's a world away from actively choosing to do it.

[ImTooHecsyForYourParty]

That's the only context I've ever heard it in too, Worra. I didn't think anyone was thick enough to not understand that we don't have bloody crystal balls and can't actually tell what's in our future. I thought people who say it always mean those who make a decision to have children when their circumstances at the time of conception mean they know that they cannot afford to feed, clothe and house those children.

If it turns out they mean that they think we can all see into the future then they're daft as a brush!

[Booyhoo]

the only times i've heard it is on threads talking about benefits where posters just spout it in reference to benefit claimants. they only specify which benefit claimants they mean after someone else says " what am i supposed to do with my children? i was married and working full time when we had our dcs, my husband was made redundant and i became ill" at which point the 'dont have children' poster will say "of course i dont mean YOU, i mean all those others who are on the 7 millionth generation of never having worked and have 1453763 children all 7 years apart in age so the scroungey single mum never has to work and can sit at home and smoke all day"

[zlist]

Another one who agrees with Worra

[WileyRoadRunner]

Exactly what worra said!

[kinkyfuckery]

What Worra said!

[TheOrchardKeeper]

I'd like to point out the myth if generation after generation is just that. Look up the statistics on it...It occurs but is not anywhere near as common as people are led to believe.

Sorry about your twunty EXH op

[TheOrchardKeeper]

Also agree with worra!

[LineRunnyEgg]

I am in the 'Having a twunty ExH' category, like the OP. I have had people say some pretty shitty things to me on MN about my not having miraculously predicted that my ExH might one day just up and leave.

I'm guessing they were wind-up merchants, or arseholes. Most people on here are pretty supportive.

In RL, though, I have had people make some cruel remarks and mean them, when I have been having a hard time juggling work, childraising, illness and finances. When I ask them what they think I ought to be doing better, they say stuff like, 'Can't their father have the children?' Well, that would be bloody lovely if he and his latest girlfriend gave a shit, but as they don't then it's all down to me.

[squeakytoy]

Its fairly obvious for anyone with common sense that it applies to the people who are already struggling, yet continue to have more children when they know damn well they are not able to support them.

[YouTheCat]

I have actually seen someone on here suggest that 'well you should have thought of that and made savings to cover for this', when a poster had been left with nothing due to a feckless ex.

Most people will mean those with nothing who keep churning out offspring but there is a small minority of people who have no empathy whatsoever and don't have a clue what it is like to struggle.

[Lonelybunny]

Think it applies to people like a lady I know who now has 5 kids by 3 different men and never worked.

[thebody]

Wot worra said.

[LineRunnyEgg]

YouTheCat
I have actually seen someone on here suggest that 'well you should have thought of that and made savings to cover for this', when a poster had been left with nothing due to a feckless ex

Yep, had all that. I even had, 'Well you chose to marry him.' Still doesn't explain what I meant to do with the kids I apparently should not have had.

Oh, and any savings I had, I had to hand over to him anyway when he divorced me.

So I think the OP does have a good point, personally.

[garlicbrunch]

The myth of generation after generation is just that.

• Yes, and Orchard has been kind to the Worras of this world, since no three-generation families have been found. None.
  

www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2012/12/cultures-worklessness

Interestingly, the bedroom tax introduces a very good reason for benefit claimants with little prospect of finding paid employment to have an extra child. Another own goal, I suspect.

[twofingerstoGideon]

Yes, I've seen the 'don't have children unless you have sufficient savings to support them until they're 18' bollocks on here, too.

[Gatorade]

I don't necessarily agree with that line being parroted out again and again (what's the point...people are already in the dire and i imagine uncomfortable situation of needing benefits, saying 'you should have planned for x' won't change that), however I do think there is a lot that parents can and should do to protect both their own and their children's futures and reduce the risk they will end up on benefits. This is personally what I did (I'm sure it doesn't cover all eventualities though and I fully admit I have been incredibly lucky, I'm certainly not saying only people who can do the below should have children):

Didn't conceive children until I could afford them and had the below outlined in place (abstained...tmi!)

Married to DH to ensure some (although limited) legal protection

Owned own property (with relatively small mortgage) and back up property which are let out (held individually in own names by DH and I so we each have our own) although I appreciate this will be beyond the means of most. Basically as secure as possible housing and asset base and not over stretching on mortgage/rent etc.

Savings for a rainy day in place (would recommend at least 6 months of expenses)

Insurance (health related, redundancy (although we don't have this as we could survive on one salary only) and death, not too expensive if started young and incredibly important if the worst happened)

Finally, and most important to me, maintaining my own financial independence (actually largely due to a thread I started on here about working or staying at home post DC, wonderful advice revieved). I don't need to work but I do because I need to know I could support myself and my DC if DH left/died.

I appreciate I haven't answered your OP, probably because there isn't a sensible answer other than 'struggle on trying to give DC the best life they can with the benefits available', but I do think there is a lot to be said for protecting yourself from the situations highlighted in your OP.

[YouTheCat]

Doesn't even cover half of the situations, Gator. Doesn't account for those unable to buy their own properties (extortionate rents therefore virtually impossible to save a deposit).

Doesn't account for those left with very young children, by feckless arses, who won't pay their way. Leaving the other parent behind to pick up the pieces and try to negotiate a job and pay for childcare, which then leaves them relying on tax credits etc.

Not everyone has the luxury of saving that much from their wages, though what they have coming in is enough to cover family expenses.

[sarahtigh]

gatorade I think that would mean about 60% of population at least not having children

[sarahtigh]

gatorade I think that would mean about 60% of population at least not having children

[LineRunnyEgg]

Gatorade I did all of that and more. But if a husband chooses to leave you as a single parent, not support his DCs, barely see them, and stitch you up for every penny he can get, whilst locking you in place with a contact order he doesn't adhere to himself - then being told that 'You should have planned better' is really best directed at the man in the arrangement, wouldn't you think?