Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

having children she can't afford without thought.

106 replies

rambini · 04/08/2010 00:46

My best friend is 21, she already has one child who is 5, and she recently got together with (another) new bloke. within 2 weeks they were "engaged" and now in week 3 they have "decided to try for a baby". neither of them work, or have any savings. her current child is surprise surprise, supported by the state, as will baby number 2 be if he/she turns up. it is just so frivolous, with no care or thought for the fact that they have not even known each other a month, they have no money, and expect other people to fund their child just so they can play happy families. it really makes me mad, am i being unfair?
thanks x

OP posts:
aquavit · 04/08/2010 11:54

MovingBeds - something that should be addressed at school, no? (I think you're right that it is a key issue here)

which makes me think, MathsMadMummy, that you should be commended for not only contributing in terms of having paid taxes in the past, etc, but also for training for one of the most sociall important jobs there is - good on you

OP, can you talk gently to your friend about it not being a very good idea to leap into ttc with such a new partner?

TheBossofMe · 04/08/2010 11:56

I'm actually pretty impressed that she can conceive a child under a park bench. Perhaps she could look for work as a contortionist.

usualsuspect · 04/08/2010 11:57
Biscuit
MumNWLondon · 04/08/2010 11:59

YANBU.

On several counts.

Firstly and mainly to consider having a baby with a bloke you have just got together with when you are only 21, regardless of who is paying. I think this shows a level of immaturity.

Secondly as others have said, the welfare state was designed to support those in need and not as a lifestyle choice, which is what you are suggesting.

ILIVEONBENEFITS - no we do not need another generation of children growing up seeing their parents living on benefits and no doubt trapped on benefits themselves and continue to be a burden to the state. Actually there might be a much better return funding middle class families to have IVF babies who would in time pay back the investment to the state tenfold.

However I don't blame her, its her choice not her fault. Its (past) governments fault for making this situation possible for her at all.

ValiumSingleton · 04/08/2010 12:01

It depends what her hopes, dreams, expectations for her child are though. Maybe in her eyes, she can afford another child.

My two are half supported by the state and half supported by my family (not their father). The idea that the rich get to have children and the poor don't makes me really uncomfortable.

Mingg · 04/08/2010 12:05

YANBU

MathsMadMummy · 04/08/2010 12:06

"However I don't blame her, its her choice not her fault. Its (past) governments fault for making this situation possible for her at all."

I agree. so what can be done about it?

TheBossofMe · 04/08/2010 12:09

Valium - no-one is saying that the poor shouldn't have kids, just that to not have any kind of a plan or hope that you or your family may one day not live on benefits alone is probably not wise. Many people need benefits for many reasons. Poverty, disability, etc. But having no desire to get a job - no sympathy from me.

Mingg · 04/08/2010 12:11

It may be the past governments fault for making the situation possible but the choice to take advantage of the situation (or not to) is hers.

MathsMadMummy · 04/08/2010 12:14

yes but if (obviously can't say in this specific case) the person has only known benefits - i.e. generations of her family have been 'scroungers' it's not really her choice IYSWIM. it is all she knows.

it's analagous to BF/FF in some ways - people vilify some mums who chose to FF from the start. but in many cases it's just because they don't know any different.

MovingBeds · 04/08/2010 12:22

Poor people do usually work aswell though Valium.

I think it is more worrying that she has only been with this gentleman for 3 weeks and they have both decided to try for a child together more shocking than the fact both of them are benefits aswell. They must have awfully low self esteem

MumNWLondon · 04/08/2010 12:38

If I was in charge what would I go about it?

  1. cap all benefits for families at 2 children. if you want to have more then you don't get a bigger house or more money.

  2. increase incentives to work - make work pay in all cases, even with a NMW job.

  3. do not pay any benefits to those under 21 who have never worked unless they are in training etc. don't make it possible to leave school and go onto benefits.

  4. raise school leaving age to 18 - but don't necessarily encourage a-levels for those who are not going to uni/college, instead encourage practical qualifications so everyone leaves school either uni or work ready

  5. try and encourage aspiration in secondary school children with more mentoring schemes encouraging employees of big companies to mentor child from deprived area. maybe even incentivise the companies to roll these programmes out on large scale.

  6. provide that women have to go back to work when youngest is 2 (or maybe 3)(but only 16 hours a week, not full time) rather than the current proposal of 7 and provide state funded nursery places from 2nd (or 3rd) birthday.

  7. offer lower benefits for woman who will not divulge the identity of the child's father to SS. I know someone who is paying money in cash to his XP for his DD because that way she gets state benefits too!

  8. make sure all state primary schools offer 8-6 wrap around care (at a cost) and there is local provision for care in school holidays at a reasonable cost. same with state run nursery schools to end the practise of state nurseries offering 2.5 hours per day which doesn't allow any time to get to work etc.

  9. Accomodate teenage mothers in temporary sheltered housing type accomodation, should not be given regular council housing.

SirBoobAlot · 04/08/2010 12:44

  1. do not pay any benefits to those under 21 who have never worked unless they are in training etc. don't make it possible to leave school and go onto benefits.

  2. Accomodate teenage mothers in temporary sheltered housing type accomodation, should not be given regular council housing.

What about those of us who are disabled teenagers, so can't work, and fall pregnant by accident? I've been on benefits for maybe two years now, and I bloody hate it - but I can't work, and I need to support myself, and now my son. Why should young mothers not be given a home for their child? Why is there such a vendetta against younger mothers?!

LucyLouLou · 04/08/2010 12:45

I haven't had a chance to read through all the replies, so sorry if I'm just repeating what others have already said, but this kind of scenario troubles me.

First of all, no, it is not morally acceptable (IMO) to intend a life on benefits. However, it is rarely that straightforward, so difficult to judge comprehensively or make a fair generalisation that covers all parents who support families from benefits. That said, there are some who do intend to live off of benefits and are proud of it. A couple who live near me have just had their second DD with the sole purpose of living off the state for a few extra years (their first DD is 7 now). They are unashamedly happy about this. A family member of mine has also done the same thing, and is now upset that her DD is about to turn 7 and she will either have to have another baby or figure out another way to get state benefits (she currently is cultivating a back pain excuse, and doesn't seem to notice my horrified looks when she proudly discusses this). Those type of scenarios, I challenge anyone with sense not to be horrified.

OP, I'm not sure if your friend is as blatant as those examples, but I understand where you're coming from. I would find it hard to fully support my best friend's choices if I was in your position. Does that make you a bad friend? No. But you might have to bite your lip and say not much about this, it doesn't sound like your friend is going to change.

For my part, I am pregnant, but both I and the father work. I will go back part time after my DD is born and although I haven't looked into it, I seriously doubt I will be entitled to many benefits, bar child benefit and some form of tax credits. I don't think I'll qualify for HB or CTB. But I then I guess I will be putting more into the system than I am taking out, maybe that's where the difference is for me.

MovingBeds · 04/08/2010 12:47

I was a younger Mother and have always worked though (and I was from a low income family) so it really isn't impossible to do, and disability is an exception. My late sister was disabled and she found it incredibly difficult to work as the vast majority of employers are not understanding. I don't think any of that is in doubt is it?

sarah293 · 04/08/2010 12:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Triggles · 04/08/2010 13:37

  1. offer lower benefits for woman who will not divulge the identity of the child's father to SS. I know someone who is paying money in cash to his XP for his DD because that way she gets state benefits too!

  2. Accomodate teenage mothers in temporary sheltered housing type accomodation, should not be given regular council housing.

.......
Hmmmm... interesting how it's always the mothers that suffer from this... the onus is never on the father to step up to the plate...

this whole line of nonsense gets soooo old...

PosieParker · 04/08/2010 13:46

Trouble is until men carry the baby the mother is always the one that requires to take the brunt of the blame and will need the most services.

However if men were required to step up a little more and were made to pay for their offspring and not rely on the state perhaps they'd keep it in their pants a little more.

Megatron · 04/08/2010 14:13

YANBU. It's ludicrous to TRY for a baby after three weeks. I believe you should always try to support your own family and I also think that it's right that benefits should be available to all that NEED them. Not so that folk can sit on their arse and make no effort to contribute to their own or their families' life. I don't need anyone else to tell me where to 'draw the line', it's common sense IMO.

sanielle · 04/08/2010 14:16

How can they punish the father if the mother won't make him known???

Surely this would enforce accountabiliy of fathers?

PosieParker · 04/08/2010 14:23

If the mother doesn't make him known then it's tough.

Triggles · 04/08/2010 19:13

Yes, the system has its flaws, but I really despair if some of this lot were ever in power. My god, I thought women were supposed to be the ones with compassion.

MumNWLondon · 04/08/2010 19:25
  1. do not pay any benefits to those under 21 who have never worked unless they are in training etc. don't make it possible to leave school and go onto benefits.

Clearly this shouldn't apply to disabled people. More just to try to prevent a cycle of poverty by ensuring that everyone leaves school with some practical work skills.

  1. offer lower benefits for woman who will not divulge the identity of the child's father to SS. I know someone who is paying money in cash to his XP for his DD because that way she gets state benefits too!

My friend is a barrister, and good income. He provides well for his DD. He is just taking advantage of the system told his XP not to divulge his identity. That way she gets state benefits and cash handouts from him.

  1. Accomodate teenage mothers in temporary sheltered housing type accomodation, should not be given regular council housing.

I think this because teenage mothers should be encouraged to continue with their educations so they have a chance at earning a living etc. Also make sure they have enough support to be good parents. Abandoning teenage mothers in council housing is IMO not a good idea.

As far as teenagers getting pregnant by accident well that is a whole different thread.

SirBoobAlot · 04/08/2010 19:57

So putting them in temporary housing, where they don't feel comfortable, can't relax, can't even hang a picture of their baby, will probably be in the middle of no where, away from their family and friends - so with no support - is a good idea? I know mothers my age in various circumstances, and the ones who have their own home, be it via social housing or HB funded, are the ones who are most settled with parenting, and are also the ones who are back in education.

You're totally going on the stereotype of Girl Falls Pregnant, Gets Council Home, Keeps Having Children, Never Does Anything With Life, and that is not fair. You will get mothers of all ages who match that description, but they are not all young.

And as an aside - its not that bloody easy to get a council property. I have been told in two years if I'm lucky I might get a one bed property. But then I'm sure that's something you approve of, isn't it?

MillyR · 04/08/2010 20:09

I don't think that two parents should spend their entire lives not working.

But I don't see any ethical difference between someone who has children before a career and someone who has children after they have established a career and then stops work.

I actually think the situation with maternity pay is unfair. There are many ways that people contribute to society that are not about being in paid work. All women with babies, whether students, SAHM, volunteers or working should be entitled to maternity pay.

We have no reason to believe that the OP's friend or the OP's friend's partner are intending to never work.