Obviously DC is floating this policy to see whether it might be a vote-winner at the next election but, I agree, it just seems like something else to cause a divide between single and two parent families. Why can?t we all be considered as just families?
I feel like having a loooong rant, and going slightly off-topic, so feel free to ignore this:
Yes.
I'm fed-up of the stereotypical portrayal in the media of single parents as stupid women, not in a stable relationship, who got pregnant accidentally (and don't know who the father is because they were sleeping around) or deliberately just in order to get a council house and live on benefits. There is very little mention in the media of the fact that the majority of single mothers are not teenagers, many of them were married when they had their children, many of them work and pay taxes, etc., etc..
I'm fed-up of the lack of mention of all the feckless, unreliable or dishonest men who are in many cases the reason for children growing-up in single parent families. I'm fed-up of the fact that the only time the man's role is mentioned it is by angry 'tax-payers' in the context of the CSA and unpaid child maintenance. Angry taxpayers who believe that single parents constitute the rot of society and that they are having to pay for us because we were irresponsible in getting pregnant. Why do they assume that all single parents are collecting benefits? And who cares if some are anyway? There are people without kids claiming benefits too. What are the statistics? I'm sure it is all massively over-blown by the media.
Obviously it is hard for a single mother to work and provide the best care for her child. Where the father is absent and where there is no extended family to help, there is no other person to cover for her if she is ill or has to work long hours. It can be exhausting and very stressful being a single parent. What if the single parent is so exhausted that she has no energy/time left to look after her child, apart from the absolute basic care? Isn't that short-changing the child? Rightly or wrongly, this government has tried to help with tax credits which make working part or full-time more viable for single parents but it is still harder for a single parent to find a decent job (employer prejudice plus just the sheer practicalities). Being a SAHM is a valid choice (whether single, in a partnership or married). Why is it not recognised and financially compensated? I suppose because many of us would just give up work if it was. On the other hand, having a job does set a good example for your children and Xenia would say (and has on many occasions!) that all women should work in case they get dumped in their middle age and end up with no career, no income, no identity, no status, no life...possibly very wise but I think that is a slightly separate topic.
Why is it that fathers4justice (I think there is a new reformed version of it?) get so much publicity so that the commonly-held view of absent fathers is that they're desperate to see their children but their ex-wife is not allowing them access? Why is it that in soap operas the situation is nearly always represented this way? Of course there are people in just this situation and it can be very unfair on the father (family courts, etc.). Perhaps the family court system should be reformed and more rights given to fathers, but, it is rarely mentioned that, in other cases, the man is abusive, possibly even to his children. And/or when he is given access, he doesn?t bother to turn up and the child is upset (not to mention how difficult and annoying it is for the mother to try and pick up the pieces). So there are reasons why the woman doesn't want to allow him access. (I'm not talking about unpaid maintenance as that is not a valid reason, however unfair it is.) And nobody in the media ever mentions all the absent fathers who just don't bother to see their children. There seems to be no shame in that? Why are there no statistics available about single parents and access visits to represent a true picture of the situation?
I think marriage is important. BTW, I wasn't married when I had my child so I suppose I am a hypocrite. I did believe at the time that I was in a stable relationship (I was engaged and the pregnancy was planned by both of us) but maybe I was fooling myself. Things change and that can happen in a marriage too. I would never judge anyone, especially not a young girl who got pregnant before she even really knew who she was. It's just that I still believe marriage is the ideal environment for children, if possible. And there is still a social stigma (in some people's eyes), definitely not helped by the media, to being a single parent. It may be not as bad as it used to be but it's still there. How does this affect the children, if their teacher is secretly prejudiced for example?
Statistics show that parents try harder to keep their family together if they are married, which in theory should be best for the children too. Married people (particularly men) try harder not to divorce because of the financial implications but there is some evidence to suggest that people who marry are more committed from the beginning than those who just live together. Who knows ? it seems like a chicken and egg situation? What sort of an example is it to children if they see their parents (or one of their parents) just give up on their marriage because a few things went wrong?
Having said this, I agree that some relationships just aren't working, or there is violence or emotional abuse, and it is better for all concerned to split up. The problem is that breaking up a family is complicated and difficult financially and emotionally and the fall-out can cause a lot of damage and bitterness, making it hard to do the best for the children. I wish I had had better judgement and not got involved with the wrong person. His actions didn't match what he was saying but I chose to listen to him. It wasn't even all his fault. I should have been more responsible. The signs were there that we were not right for each other but I chose to ignore them because I thought things would get better. I do feel guilty for dd's sake but it's history now and I just have to do my best.
To get back to the point of this thread, I can see why a political party might want to support marriage as an institution via the tax system. I don't know whether DC is going about it the right way but it does seem at the moment that married couples with a low household income are unfairly disadvantaged by the current tax credit system. But I don't know whether this takes into account that single parent families mean that the parents live in separate houses (or flats, 'dwellings') so, what with council tax, high utility bills, insurance, high rents or mortgage, the cost of living for a single parent family, plus the absent parent at a separate address, is bound to be higher than for a married couple who only have one household to run. Isn't it for this reason that single parent families are entitled (in the system, not necessarily morally) to the benefits and/or tax credits that they are? Obviously it would be cheaper for the government/taxpayer if we all lived together, more people in fewer houses, but that is not the way that modern life and families are going.
The Conservatives are banging on about marriage at the moment. To repeat myself, I do think we would have a better society and more children would be better off if there was less family breakup. As a single parent myself, I am convinced that we can do a good job but it is hard on your own. There are couples, in abusive relationships, who are better off apart, and it is better for the children too, but I think you can't deny that family break-up can be very difficult for children, especially when they have a good relationship with the other parent. But is £20 a week going to make any difference?
If one of the reasons people don't get married is that they don't want the financial commitment, why doesn't the government take that disincentive away? I think this is something that has been talked about recently. There are some interesting statistics (sorry I haven't got a source to link to) from countries (Australia is one, I think?) where unmarried couples have the same rights as married ones, i.e. if the couple breaks-up, their finances are considered joint, as for a married couple. The effect this is having is that the rate of couples who marry is going up, because there is no longer a disincentive to marry (for men mainly, who tend to be the higher wage-earners) so they might as well go the whole hog and get married. Perhaps this would make some men (and some women) act more responsibly in their relationships because it would be harder to just walk away? And fewer women would be taken in by men who aren't really committed to being a father and/or who think that abortion is a form of contraception? Maybe not, I don't know. Despite what the media seems to think, there are so many different circumstances that can all lead to single parenthood. And I suppose sometimes it is for the best.
Child maintenance should be taken at source by HM Customs & Excise, leaving the CSA (or whatever name it is using) to pursue the difficult cases such as those who refuse to pay and are self-employed, etc.. Men who dispute they are the father can have a DNA test as per the current system.
End of rant. This is jumbled, badly structured, repetitive, contradictory, not very cogent. No wonder he left me ? opinionated, hypocritical, long-winded, boring feminist!