To think adding more child benefits is a pointless and futile policy?

And just in case that post was satire, Lord of the Flies is a genius touch.

Oh aye 🙄

I hope their goat was tied up responsibly outside.

The main driver of child poverty and the increase in child poverty is the 2 child benefit cap

Really? Surely it's having more children than you can comfortably afford to pay for?

There is a small sample size here in the hospital waiting room as I sit now. There are 4 children being seen as private patients and one as NHS. The 4 private children are currently being read to by their parent, talking to their parent and eating some cheese, reading Lord of the Flies and doing some homework. The NHS child is running around the room with a disengaged parent on his phone who is keeping her quiet with a can of Monster drink and a bag of Haribo. She’s just called everyone in the waiting room ‘fat pigs’. It costs nothing to bring a book to read to your child. This is the difference. These are the sort of people who should not be encouraged to breed any more children.

It costs more to give disabled children the same quality of life as non-disabled children. Scope estimates it can cost more than 900 pounds a month. https://www.scope.org.uk/campaigns/extra-costs I have seen other sources saying 500 - I am sure you could debate the actual amount since it depends how you calculate it/what you consider a decent quality of life. But even things like transport can cost more. Unless you have talked to someone in that situation its hard to understand the extent to which every single thing can be impacted because we take so much for granted - even leaving the house.

Very often one parent can't work if the children are disabled. But even if one parent is working their career can still be impacted - often children with disablities are seriously ill and can have health emergencies. And maybe the working parent needs to take on things like picking up other children from school etc while the SAHP cares for the child(ren) with disabilities.

Your online calculator won't tell you that. Of course some parents will take the P. e.g.there have been cases where foster parents essentially treated foster care as a business and starved their children while pocketing the income**. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay foster parents - just that we should crack down on abusive ones. Some parents are abusive/neglectful. But parents are more likely than anyone else to have their children's best interests at heart - statistically most parents are not profiting from their children and a benefits system that assumes they are would be an appalling one

**This is more common in America where there seems to be less regulation and foster care farms more of a thing.

Do you feel like disabled people are better off not born? How very retro.

How about no.

It’s uncomfortable but it is an issue. There are several local families here who have 4/5 children, each of them (for whatever reason and I don’t want to speculate) end up with a diagnosis or are very delayed to the point of SEN, the parents are on benefits and struggling to cope yet every couple of years another baby appears. I know it’s uncomfortable to discuss but are financial incentives to have children the right thing for these families?

No you are not a case of a neglectful parent.

How about increasing the amount of child benefit? It’s quite a low amount and decreases for a second child. it hasn’t kept up with cost of living rises

I don’t think anybody has made any negative comments towards anyone in your situation?

It has been said multiple times, including by the OP, that it is absolutely a different thing entirely if your circumstances change once you already have children. Life happens, it can’t be helped.

That is a totally different situation to bringing children into the world knowing you cannot afford to feed, clothe, house them etc.

.

The poster I was replying too who thinks child related benefits including DLA are far to generous.

Disagree. It is inhumane to create a life that you don't have the resources to feed and shelter. The very basic requirements of being a parent is being able to feed your child.

I hate to be that person, but how is this the case? As I said above, a parent with 2 children on DLA and caring responsibilities would receive ~£3,000 in benefits per month. That’s a £37k salary. There are multiple families in this area with 3 or even 4 children all on DLA who will be receiving even more than that. (And when I did the calculator I entered lower rate DLA, so if higher rate it would be significantly more than that)

Who's talking about disabled people???

A person who has no education working in a low-wage job and providing a significant portion of their income for the support of a high-needs child obviously wouldn’t be the target of legislation aiming to penalise non-custodial parents who deliberately stay on benefits or hide income to avoid having to support their children. It isn’t possible in one Mumsnet comment to cover all nuance in every situation, but I think it’s common sense to conclude that introducing minimum ordered support that is based on the cost of raising the child/children rather than income would also include guidance on not exceeding a certain percentage of income for a non custodial parents who a family court judge rules is making all reasonable efforts to maximise earnings.

Someone choosing to bring a life into the world knowing they can't financially support them is bad parenting. It's selfish and neglectful.

Yep. I agree.

Not necessarily for every child, but statistically true on balance. Children of poorer parents tend to have worse outcomes.

Here is something which doesn't need to be downloaded
Nearly Half of Families With A Disabled Child Living in Poverty | Disability Rights UK

If we paid family carers "properly" it would cost more than the NHS costs and bankrupt the country overnight. If we took all disabled children etc into state care (as in communist Romania) so the parents could be "productive" members of society it would still cost a huge amount and also be awful. The current situation is by far the cheapest option for the state and taxpayers. Having a child with disabilities can plunge a whole family into poverty. The fact that that is the case but some people want to cut benefits for those families more is abhorent.

Just for some balance while we discuss the ridiculous lives of luxury most parents of disabled children live...
Understanding the financial needs of families with… | Social Finance

In this country they’re associated with antisocial behaviour, but an easy solution to that is any antisocial behaviour and they’re evicted. Two strikes and you’re out, you wanna trash your local environment and make life uncomfortable for others, go pay through the nose in private rent or abide by the rules.

But the problem with that if you're talking about families with children is exactly the same as the issue with limiting benefits for parents that you see as feckless or whatever: ultimately the child will suffer for something they have no control over.