to think the HIP grant should be paid to this women

[AuntiePickleBottom]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1324448/Health-bosses-refuse-pay-pregnancy-benefit-woman-premature-baby-born-early.html

sorry can't do clickable links.

here

very very unfair.

YANBU, it is so silly, I understand that "rules can't be bent", however whoever made the 25 week rule in the first place has some explaining to do, the age of "vaibility" (sorry that is a crude medical term and I don't mean to offend anyone with it), is 24 weeks, so why are the parents of babies born at 24 weeks discriminated against?

YANBU bloody ludicrous especially when you read about families who adopt babies at birth from women who already have large numbers of children in social care and the new parents can't claim because the pregnant mother claimed.

I don't know why it is 25 weeks. However, LesbianMummy1, why is it ludicrous that the new parents can't claim because the pregnant mother claimed? It is a Health in pregnancy grant, designed to promote, well, health in pregnancy. It was never intended to be a 'new baby grant'.

Blimey - I think the HIP is (was? as it's being abolished) a bit of a waste of money, but if she hadn't had her baby so prematurely she'd still be pregnant and would have got it.

Its been happening ever since the HIP grant came in. None of the prem mums I knew with pre 25 weekers got it, despite the fact prem mums have a lot of additional costs on top of the normal baby ones (travel to hospital, parking, food at hospital for them, breat pumps, and we often run out of paid maternity leave before the baby even comes home!) You have to try and keep going and pumping milk for the baby so mothers health is crucial.... its one of the many reasons the hip grant is sooo silly. I don't agree that the hip grant should continue but its a real slap in the face not to get it when your life is falling apart (or appears to be)

It shoudl be 24 weeks as per the age of viability.

But, it is designated for health in pregnancy which she no longer needs.

it should be any live birth. babies live pre 24 weeks

I had my twins at 23 weeks and was lucky enough to get the HIP grant. I think I just submitted it to my gp with my original due date on it and he signed it.

Hmmm... it's meant for eating well etc. in pregnancy. Surely she gets child benefit now, and extra tax credits and a maternity grant given that her husband is unemployed...?

all of which she would also need for a term baby. the additional costs won't be covered by that. The costs of a prem are huge. In my case I calculated it was over £10,000, mostly in lost pay, but still the actual costs were significantly over £1000 once the double electric breast pump was included.

I doubt extra tax credits and child benefit for one child go far when travelling from Basildon to central London on a daily basis.

I know it's health in pregnancy grant but it does seem unfair that she can't get it because she had such a premature baby

That is hideously unfair especially as many mothers of full term babies have no financial problems.

I feel that their family have been hard done by. Surely some charity could help her family. Or if there was someway that mumsnet ould have a cyber whipround.

however because of her income she should be entitled to the sure start grant which is £500 so that should help.

It's 24 week incase people claim then abort.

I think there should be funds available to her, but not the HIP

Its harsh but if they break the rule for one they would have to do it for all and the HIP was not designed for travel costs.

£190 wont last that long on travel costs so they would have to look at other options anyway. With three other children and adding a fouurth they will be getting a fair bit of CTC, WTC and CB and other assistance with not working. No loss of salary either which many other couples would face.

What scary said. It's to promote health in pregnancy. She isn't pregnant.

I can't help thinking it's not a very good idea for a couple with half an income to have a fourth child .

I do agree that the HIP isn't right here, but, having had DD at 27 weeks in a hospital 2 hours drive from home due to overcrowding, we were about £1000 out of pocket in the first 3 weeks of her life with transport costs and hotel bills. Luckily she was then transferred closer to home and so costs reduced, but it was still an expense we couldn't have planned for.

I agree though - I can't help but feel that with their income, adding a fourth child might not have been the best move!

Its a health in pregnancy grant, designed to help you towards the end of your pregnancy. Yes can see that premature baby is extra expense, but thats not what this grant was intended for.

The dad doesn't work, they already have 3 kids, sorry but why should the state pick up the pieces if they can't afford it.

MumNWLondon that is a really horrid attitude; where does your manual for living say that the father must work?

The article clearly states that the mother works albeit part time

Do you claim no benefits at all?

Oh come off it with the - they are skint and have one part time wage between them. How is a fourth child a good idea?