Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Alouisee · 15/12/2011 07:36

Intelligent and responsible people realise that there is far more to consider than whether you want another one or not.

I'm amazed at the slagging off the Op is getting. I also wonder why it's acceptable for Hully to sling about insults that would be deleted if they'd have come from another poster?

CogitoErgoSometimes · 15/12/2011 07:41

YANBU OP. Depressing that, on the one hand, we wring our hands over child poverty statistics not improving and, on the other, there are people like your SIL deliberately bumping up the numbers. It's irresponsible and thoughtless.

Original poster
mothersdaughter · 15/12/2011 08:01

'Course not Alouisee.

But that's MN I suppose. Know your place in the pecking order.

OP posts:
Original poster
mothersdaughter · 15/12/2011 08:05

Laquitar - For us a third child would be too costly. As I previously explained we cannot afford for me to take another lot of mat leave, we are running out of room. On a practical note we have no family close by, both DH and I have long commutes etc.

I accept though that the number of children she has does not directly influence the number I can/cannot have.

Her attitude towards it and the social set up that enables it stings though.

OP posts:
startwig1982 · 15/12/2011 08:09

Goodness, 7 children by 28?? That's quite a feat!! Mind you one of dh's work people has 9 dc, but they are roman catholic and both work. Hope she stops at 7...

rogersmellyonthetelly · 15/12/2011 08:23

IMO women should have as many children as they want provided they can care for them and can afford to house clothe and feed them adequately. This woman has never worked and never will. Nor has her partner yet they are costing the tax payer a small fortune in housing benefit, unemployment benefit, income support, free school meals, child tax credits etc etc. and they live apart because they would get less living together! I can understand an unplanned pregnancy, perhaps 2, but 7? I don't think so. People behave like this because the system allows them to and it needs to stop. I don't have the solution but we need to find one. It's people like this, and the council estates round here are full of them, who are beggaring this country, not the disabled, not the sick, not those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, but those idle sods who receive benefits whilst having kids year in year out and have no intention of ever doing a days work in their lives.

aldiwhore · 15/12/2011 08:34

Can understand the anger. You can't let it get you down though, its not fair of course, and I'm still not sure what the rewards of 'doing the right thing' are at times, but if you dwell on it you'll get bitter, and bitterness eats away at you so don't.

All you can ever do is be proud that you're making the right decisions for the right reasons... however, a third child isn't as expensive as you may think, unless you sit down and plan their life out, if we all did that before breeding, we probably wouldn't breed.

I'm fucked off that my benefit supported friend is buying a free range woodland turkey with bells on for Christmas and we're having a bog standard turkey because of the cost! But really, I'm not going to let it ruin either my friendship or Christmas (because I'm a better cook) though it does rankle at times. You need to concentrate on you and yours, screw anyone else because you'll live in anger everyday and that's no way to live.

sheeplikessleep · 15/12/2011 08:54

I'm also amazed at the number of posters who feel that everyone has a 'right' to have as many children as they want, regardless of the fact they are relying on other people's tax money to pay for them.

I think every woman and man does have a right to have as many children as they want (albeit we are overpopulating a crowded world!), providing you can afford them yourself.

My feeling is that financial support should be provided for those with need, rather than those intentionally continuing to procreate with no intention to support themselves or their family. There has to be some sort of social responsibility surely? This sense of entitlement shocks me.

Yuuule · 15/12/2011 09:24

JosieZ "Yeah, right. How much hands on care can you give when you have six kids already"

This comment isn't relevant to this discussion.
Just because someone like JosieZ couldn't give enough hands on care to several children doesn't mean that the ops sil can't.

catsmother · 15/12/2011 09:28

Totally agree with all NoWay's posts. It's sickening - surely ? - to any decent person that money "has" to be paid out to people who had (in this particular type of situation) a choice about whether or not to have more children, increase their household expenses, limit their employment opportunities etc etc. Obviously ... the children involved in this are innocents and that's why state benefits increase with each new arrival so they aren't disadvantaged ... but when those kids have been born as a result of someone's irresponsibility, recklessness, sense of entitlement and apparent lack of considering the bigger picture (i.e. society as a whole and how we should all be responsible as much as possible for ourselves) it's very hard to swallow. Particularly so when many others are facing real hardships through absolutely no fault of their own yet their genuine entitlement to state help is so often lacking .... which in turn comes back to there only being so much money in the pot, and it having to be divvied up somehow. What's so unreasonable in wanting that pot to go to people needing help through circumstances completely beyond their control ? Having 7 kids does NOT fall into that category.

As for "natural urges". Well .... I should think that might apply to 100s of 1000s of women but most of them do manage to exercise some self control and responsibility, even if that means makingh heart breaking decisions about the size of their families. I have a 13.5 year gap between my 2 because my personal and financial circumstances meant it would have been a very bad idea to have a 2nd child in that intervening period. Yeah - I could have done it, but apart from anything else I didn't want to bring a child into a situation where I knew upfront I'd be placing them at a disadvantage.

Having said all that I really don't know what the answer is ..... unfortunately, financially penalising women who do this will impact their children adversely and no-one could think that was right.

ihatecbeebies · 15/12/2011 09:33

OP, why does her husband not live with her and his kids?

rubyrubyruby · 15/12/2011 09:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tryingtoleave · 15/12/2011 09:41

People do make decisions based on the incentives govt provides.

The solution is easy - no one has to hysterically talk about forced sterilisation. You just make benefits go up a little for each each additional child - not keep multiplying them. That is how it works here and we simply don't have this kind of problem. There is a welfare net if you have one mistake you can't afford but no incentives to keep having children and not working. If the op's sil thought that her standard of living would decrease (as it would for any working person) with a seventh child, I bet she wouldn't be having one.

sheeplikessleep · 15/12/2011 09:58

Exactly tryingtoleave. Where do you live out of interest?

I know I'm sounding increasingly tory, but when I hear of respite care and carers allowance being cut, it just feels so wrong to read situations like this.

tryingtoleave · 15/12/2011 10:06

Australia. Our welfare system seems aimed at getting people back to work asap. The idea is that the longer you are out of the workforce the less likely you are to ever return. So, childcare is heavily subsidised for everyone, especially if you are on low income. If you are young and have a baby dependent on welfare you have to be back in at least part time education or work by the time the baby is one to continue getting welfare. I have sometimes felt that there is too much emphasis on working and not enough value placed on caring, but when I read threads like this I think it is the lesser of two evils.

Pishtushette · 15/12/2011 10:08

The OP hasn't hinted at forced abortion or sterilisation. All she's saying (if I understand correctly) is that she is working hard for a living and she can't afford to have a 3rd child, but someone else who has chosen not to work can keep having children and receive extra money for it.

Of course we would all want the children to be provided for, but it does seem unfair when you're working hard and struggling to make ends meet, and you see someone who does nothing to help themselves getting free handouts. I'm not saying that nobody should receive benefits, but I think the system needs to be changed. It's hard to know what the answer is because it's the children that matter as they have no choice about being born.

TheRealTillyMinto · 15/12/2011 10:09

the SIL sounds really attention seeking - like her children are just props. i dont believe she is having them for their own sake but her own benefit, perhaps more emotional than financial. to get attention from her DP, DM, neighbours etc.

NoWayNoHow · 15/12/2011 10:13

People should definitely take into acount how many children they can physically and emotionally care for

I wouldn't have 7, but I don't like fertile women being good targets for a witchhunt, and to blame all our woes on

This is NOT a witch hunt persecuting fertile women, for goodness sake. I don't care if someone has 20 kids, provided they can physically, emotionally and financially take care of them.

Hammy02 · 15/12/2011 10:17

No-one is suggesting forced sterilisation or anything like that. People can have as many children as they want. Just don't expect someone else to pay for them. The money will stop soon enough, hopefully DC will see to that. Then people will ying on about child poverty as if it is anyone else's responsibiliy but the parent's.

TheRealTillyMinto · 15/12/2011 10:29

actually her DP should have to make enough of a a CSA payment from his benefits to stop his behaviour.

he has 7 children. doesnt pay for them. or live with them. & cannot imagine he does much parenting

tryingtoleave · 15/12/2011 10:34

I didnt mean anyone was suggesting forced sterilization. What I meant was that some posters are responding to any criticism of the sil or the system by suggesting that the critics want to sterilize poor people. I was trying to say that no one was suggesting that and that that kind of escalation was totally unnecessary and a misrepresentation of what critics were saying.

Hope that makes sense now.

tryingtoleave · 15/12/2011 10:37

Most people (not all, I know) wouldn't choose to have seven children close together unless there was an incentive.

minciepie · 15/12/2011 10:42

YANBU

Funnily enough she just could not fathom out why having another DC would cost us money, when for her its just increases her income

^^This is the problem, right here. The problem is not the step SIL. She has made a very rational decision given her circumstances and given the benefit system that we have. It is that system which is the problem.

It is absurd that having an additional child makes you poorer if you are working, but richer if you are not working.

waitingforchristmas · 15/12/2011 10:58

Hang on since when did it become acceptable to have more children than you could afford to take care of. I can see why the op is rubbed the wrong about this to be quite frank i am. I don't think anyone is persecuting fertile women, i can tell you now i am honest to god one of the MOST fertile women on the planet. My dh (or rather dp we aren't married) only has to look at me and i get pregnant, condoms don't work neither does the pill and apparently neither does the injection, here's to hoping the implant does. What i'm trying to say is i haven't had 7 kids, being fertile is not a valid excuse for having more kids than you can afford to support. Noone should have children if they are "expecting" the state to pay for them. I am not suggesting forced sterlistaion i am simply suggesting that anyone who has a child WHILST they are relying on state handouts does not got any further handouts for said child, i think that would be a very effective method of contraception!

waitingforchristmas · 15/12/2011 11:02

BTW tryintoleave what you are saying makes absolute perfect sense which is why it will never be adopted by the this country :)