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

To be pissed off that step - SIL is expecting DC7?

225 replies

mothersdaughter · 12/12/2011 21:08

Just returned from the in laws for the pre Xmas meet up.

DH's step Sister was there. She proudly announced she is pregnant with DC7. She is 28, has never worked since leaving school. Her DP does not live with her, but they are together. He is the father of all the children. He does not work either, so they are essentially living off the state. She has no plans to consider long term contraception.

This week DH and I came to the conclusion that there would be no DC3. We cannot afford for me to have another lot of Maternity leave, and also childcare fees.

DH works full time, I work almost full time and both DC's are in nursery. He are not near the breadline, but have to be very careful and things like holidays etc are just not possible. Therefore it is more than sensible to not have a DC3. I have felt a little sad this week, I do sort of feel that I'd love another one, but its just not workable.

So AIBU to be totally pissed of that step SIL can bang out kid after kid with no thought or consequence? Funnily enough she just could not fathom out why having another DC would cost us money, when for her its just increases her income.

OP posts:
PoppadumPreach · 12/12/2011 21:41

Hunty - emotional stuff but the flip side is that people will perhaps be a bit more sensible with their procreation and there will be more money to spend on fewer children so more families above the breadline. i like the idea of more capita per child - must bring about a higher quality of life.

purplewednesday · 12/12/2011 21:41

mothersdaughter I agree with you.

No words of wisdom that will make you feel better, other than I hate the injustice of it all.

My Mum was the eldest of 7 and she hated it; having to be the second mother in the house, not being able to go anywhere without a little one in tow, not being able to have half a conversation with her Mum as she was always too busy. Oh and she had to help financially when she got older too, and was kept off school when one of them came along as she was needed to help with the others while her Mum was up all night.

Your 2 DCs will have all the time and support you can offer them which is soo valuable.

Yuuule · 12/12/2011 21:42

"What I ask though is why are we in a position where someone can have 7 DC's funded by the state, but also with no questions asked as to whether this is the right situation for the DC's to born into."

So what is your solution? Compulsory sterilization? Benefits capped and the children go without? Children put into care?

soverylucky · 12/12/2011 21:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

usualsuspect · 12/12/2011 21:42

I like these threads though

I like to watch the frothing

Original poster
mothersdaughter · 12/12/2011 21:43

Dawn - I have no issue with people claiming benefits.

I have no control over my taxes.

I do question why we are in a position where families with disabled DC's etc are frightened for the future whereas my step SIL can constantly reproduce with no consequence.

OP posts:
MyChildDoesntNeedSleepAtXmas · 12/12/2011 21:43

Hunty What is 'UC'?

YuleingFanjo · 12/12/2011 21:44

I think YABU because you are feeling upset about your own decision to stop at two. Maybe you need to re-visit that and discuss it more with your DH, perhaps there are ways you can make it work if it really is something you want.

your SIL's situation is a whole other issue and you should stop stressing about it.

WHat is your relationship with her like generally?

soverylucky · 12/12/2011 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StrandedUnderTheMisltoe · 12/12/2011 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JeremyVile · 12/12/2011 21:46

Pisses me off that this sort of thing is always talked about in terms of money.

Like some young girl sits down with calculator at 17 and decides babies and benefits is, all things considered, a decent career.

OP, your sil's entire life is treading water. Its probably never going to get better. Do you think she has a nice life? Do you think she feels secure and confident and valued and important? I very much doubt it.

Theres a hell of a lot to be upset about with this set-up, the cost to the fucking taxpayer is WAY down the list.

usualsuspect · 12/12/2011 21:46

Obviously

rubyrubyruby · 12/12/2011 21:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tryharder · 12/12/2011 21:47

I don't think anyone on this thread is benefit-bashing. But what is the point of having 7 children when you cannot provide them with a reasonable quality of life or support them yourself. I am sure than having another child might give her a bit more child benefit or tax credit but would it really be worth it?

I think it is sad that this women has no other life options than to keep on having children that she can't really afford. I also think it is sad that she chooses to live apart from her partner presumably in order to take advantage of single parent benefits - just state sponsored cock lodging really.

Other than that, I almost admire her. 7 children in quick succession like that would drive me to an early grave.

Original poster
mothersdaughter · 12/12/2011 21:47

Exactly sovery. I'd be happy to increase my tax contributions to support families who have fallen on difficult times etc.

I see it everyday in my job, I work in healthcare in a deprived inner city area. Lots of lone parent families that have had a crap start in life, or victims of DV etc. That's not the issue.

OP posts:
headfairy · 12/12/2011 21:51

Unless you are living a very green and sustainable life having 7 children is damn un-environmentally friendly.

troisgarcons · 12/12/2011 21:51

Maybe you will feel a lot better then, when they are homeless and starving?

No one in this country will be starving or homeless ..... the excess money will disapate, and its unfortunate that maybe voucers will be issued because it will mark out parents of circumstance, rahther than circumstancial parents. But no-one will starve and no child will be homeless.

Yuuule · 12/12/2011 21:52

So are a lot of other things headfairy.

HappyMummyOfOne · 12/12/2011 21:53

Its wrong but theres nothing you can do to change it and there will come a point when benefits have to dramatically drop as we simply cant afford the bill.

Your children will grow up with lots of attention, a good work ethic and studies show that children raised on benefits dont fare as well in life and many will simply go on to claim themselves.

If there were no child related benefits bar making childcare tax deductible, it would soon stop who have children without any intention of supporting them.

CardyMow · 12/12/2011 21:54

UC is Universal Credit that will be replacing both the out-of-work benefits of IS/JSA/ESA, the in-work benefits like WTC/CTC and WTc childcare element AND also replacing Housing benefit, and it will have a £500 a week cap on the entire lot (including housing and childcare) no matter HOW many dc you have got. Read some of the frothers threads in Politics - they're quite informative...

Alouisee · 12/12/2011 21:54

If each of those 7 children go on to produce children without being willing to support them (which is more likely coming from a non working family) then society and the welfare state as we know it will have to cease. It is in everybody's interest to prevent this type of freeloading other wise we won't be ale to support the people who are genuinely in need.

PoppadumPreach · 12/12/2011 21:56

"So what is your solution? Compulsory sterilization? Benefits capped and the children go without? Children put into care?"

No, people decide not to have so many children so they don't end up so poor.

You don't have to have a 3-figure IQ to work that one out.

Original poster
mothersdaughter · 12/12/2011 21:56

Hunty - Sorry I have only just seen your post.

Not sure what you mean, as no of course I would not want to see or the DC's homeless or starving. Where in any of my posts did I say that?

At the end of the day there are children involved, and I would hate to see any happen to them or see them spilt up. However, I also hate seeing that they by the sheer number of DC's she has, they do not have a great quality of childhood.

Yueling - We do not see that much of each other, as we live 100 miles apart. We get on ok, in terms of general chit chat, although she is very opinionated about my parenting choices, she has stated this weekend that she thinks "I'm mad" for not staying at home with my DC's and that I am missing out on them growing up.

Funnily enough, she is very judgy about others. I work in a very mixed multi-cultural area, and care for a lot of women from various ethnic backgrounds. She is pretty scathing about other cultures and their beliefs/values etc.

OP posts:
natation · 12/12/2011 21:56

£26,395.20 per year, or £2199.60 per month or £507.60 per week in IS, CTCs and CB.... that's no additionals for special needs.

Possibly full HB and CT - god knows how much that could be costing per year.

If the story is true, poor kids.

The blame also lies in the lack of political will to stop increasing benefits with each child, as part from CB, for those families on average or above average income, they don't get a pay rise with each child.

CardyMow · 12/12/2011 21:58

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you when you say that no-one will be homeless or starving, trois. If the parents refuse to aplly for a job, that is maybe logistically impossible for them to do - say, in my case, a job that is a 90 minute DRIVE away is in the guidelines, and I can't drive due to epilepsy - they will stop your UC for first 3 months, then 6 months, and then for 3 years (though the Lords are trying to change that to 1 years). Not that chagning the total stoppage of your entire income for one year is any more bnevolent than stopping it for three years, you've still starved by then...