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

[mothersdaughter]

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.

Such a tricky situation. On the one hand, she shouldn't get 'paid' for her decision to keep popping out kids. However, and I speak as someone who works in the area of child welfare, you can't punish the child for the decisions of the parent. Part of me thinks that child benefits should stop after 2 kids but the reality of that is child poverty and a cycle of disadvantage.

I think those of us who are more responsibly minded have to just suck it up and consider our taxes as a kind of 'donation to charity'!

On a positive note, I am the product of a childhood spent on benefits (one of 4 rather than 7 though) and have never claimed any myself, put myself through uni at 18 (BA and MA) and now pay a lot of tax in quite a senior role, so as long as it doesn't become generation after generation on benefits, it's not a huge social problem. I'm paying back all the money I got from the governement when growing up!

millonthefloss its great that you made something of your life. However, I am certain that the majority of people brought up in a household where neither parent goes out to work, go on to repeat the cycle as it is all they know.

I think millonthefloss makes a very good point. (Great name by the way i love that book, I love Mary Anne Evans.Silas Marner is a great favorite, sorry i've gone off topic:).) It is not the childrens fault, i think being a child of 7 would have an awful lot of disadvantages. I am from a family of 4 and it was hard enough competing for attention against my brothers and sisters and there were only 3 of them not 6. I think it is very easy to despise women like the ops sil and yes it would be lovely if we could "punish" her without punishing her children as well but unfortunatly i think it would be very difficult to seperate the two. It's not fair , it does make me angry but then there's not a lot i can do about it, i'm fairly sure there is a prayer from Reinhold Niebuhr that would be appropriate for this thread.

Alouisee@07:36:44: Intelligent and responsible people realise that there isc far more to consider than whether you want another one or not.

Of course. 100s reasons and not only financial ones. i.e. not wanting to put up with another pregnancy and birth, sleepless nights, chaos and mess, limited freedom, losing the study/guest room, not sure about the marriage, weight anxiety etc etc. Which is fine. But no one mentions these reasons. Most people will say 'we can not afford it, we are 'intelligent' and 'responsible', blah blah blah' implying that anyone with more children than them is irresponsible, unintelligent, on benefits.

Mill Part of me thinks that child benefits should stop after 2 kids but the reality of that is child poverty and a cycle of disadvantage.

I do understand this argument but I wonder if it's true. Perhaps the result would not be child poverty, but rather that people reliant on the state would decide to stop after 2 kids?

You're right Hammy, all four of us are atypical and I don't honestly know why that is. Perhaps it's because although we lived in a council house, it was in a 'nice' middle class area so we aspired to different things. Not necessarily material things but for me anyway, I always wanted the Victorian semi, academic type job and for things like the theatre, holidays abroad and eating in nice restaurants to be a normal part of life, not how the other half live.

The cycle does get repeated in most cases but I think intercepting that is going to be an eternal struggle. I saw that kind of thing around me when I lived on a council estate until I was 9 and I honestly don't see anything aspirational about sitting around the house all day on benefits.

I bumped into my childhood friend from that time in the town centre, during the uni holidays in the late 90's and she was on benefits, had a kid, another on the way and council house in a rough part of town. We were both shy, bookish kids so it made me sad that her life had turned out like that, not envious. OK, I wouldn't buy a house for another ten years, and at 32, still don't have kids but have travelled, studied, worked in interesting jobs and wouldn't swap lives.

I don't think that is the point Alouise is making, she certainly wasn't implying that anyone with more children was on benefits. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. It is true people who are intelligent and responsible weigh up all the considerations. (Financial ones usually play the biggest part, i'm sorry but it is true.) I think most people say "they cannot afford it" because at the end of they day it does come down to money. I had two very difficult labours with both my children, i nearly died during my first pregnancy and my second child is a pain on a night however all those reasons for not having 3 or 4 more children would be outweighed by my desire to have them. The reason I and most people, (note i said most) choose not to have more than 2 or 3 is simply because they cannot afford them or could not house them, (again coming down to money). It doesn't make people who have more than 2 or 3 irresponsible providing they can without interference from the state. That is the point that is being made.

Again, I will say that it hasn't led to increased child poverty here. People simply have smaller families. There are struggling families, of course, but they will have two or three children - not seven. The only people I know of with larger families are religious. If they can't support themselves they tend to look for help from their parents or communities.

It is argued that it is welfare reliance that entrenches poverty and employment that leads out of poverty. But I suspect we have a higher minimum wage and certainly a better economy at present.

Would i be right in guessing that those defending the SIL are in fact in a similar position themselves? Just a thought.

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

I agree

However, and I speak as someone who works in the area of child welfare, you can't punish the child for the decisions of the parent.

but by that logic, the government needs to be handing out significant amounts of extra cash to all working couples for all children bred, without limitation. because at the moment, we'd certainly be much much poorer if we went for number 3, but because we can't afford it (childcare, extra issues around space), we can't.

so if we decide to have number 3, our children's quality of life will suffer, as will ours. yet someone on benefits never sees that downside (and by implication neither does their children, in a materialistic sense - clearly your attention is divided if you have more children so there's an emotional cost to deal with too).

hence, the prefectly normal question of "can i provide for this extra mouth?" doesn't have to be addressed.

What humpty dumpty said :)

Again, I will say that it hasn't led to increased child poverty here. People simply have smaller families.

tryingtoleave that is very interesting about the Australian system and the outcome it has had.

To all those who say cutting back on child benefits would lead to child poverty - here is evidence that it doesn't. Instead it leads to people with little money having fewer children.

Well that's how it should be shouldn't it? I think it's crazy that so many people seem to think that it is ok for someone to have seven children when they are not in employment. It's not ok, or has anyone missed the fact that our country is in masses and masses of debt. I'm not saying that it is the ops SILs fault but clearly people like this are not helping the situation. If everybody had seven children and didn't then work to keep them our economy would very quickly go to pot. I think behavoiur like this should not be defended and needs to be discouraged, what kind of example is she setting for those children. I find it very hard to believe that a single mother,(which she is if her dh doesn't live with her) would be capable of looking after seven children without hired help. Two is hard enough but seven? You would have to be out of your mind.

Is a 'free range woodland turkey' the christmas version of the Flat screen TV ?

I wonder about those who think it's not acceptable to have kids whilst on benefits. What about people with disabilites, some of them may, through no fault of their own, be able to find a job, should they not be afforded the same rights as those who are able to work, or should they not have kids, just because they have no choices?

Only the MC are allowed to have children ,not us common council estate plebs

Good points Dawn and usualsuspect

Many people these days cannot find work so should they not have kids? Of course they should. We are supposed to be a Christian country, what happened to helping those less fortunate? One of her 7 kids may grow up to do something really amazing - many successful people have come from poor/difficult backgrounds.

With regards to a previous posters comment on having a 3rd DC isn't any more difficult financially than 2 DC I think that's a load of bull. Yes, in the short term having another baby is easy if you already have all the equipment. But what about when they are older and need money for clothes, shoes (which are not cheap!) and school outings, hobbies, etc. Cannot fathom how in the long term one more child doesn't make that much difference, tbh...I'd think it actually does! You're even more financially screwed the more children you have - unless you choose benefits as a lifestyle choice.

choca if we all had unlimited money to spread around then I would agree with you.

But we don't. The money to support the children of people living on benefits comes from tax payers. That means it comes out of someone else's pockets. As a result, that person (the tax payer) may not themselves be able to afford to have as many children as they want to have. Is that fair?

I dont think you are being unreasonable because, 7 is a few too many and with no plans of contraception it seems she will just go on to have more. After my first i had a implant put in, which i suppose isnt exactly long term, but lasts for 3years and they wont sterilise me as i am only 23years old, but still sensible, i aslo know its due for renewal on 13 auguist 2013, and it will be booked in by the beginning of july to be done before then, not that i plan on having a partner, but anyway, it has stopped my periods completly, so love having it!!

The money to pay MPs comes from tax payers too.

Which is why they should be taking pay cuts and not teachers firemen etc or being forced to take a pension decrease as well as all these bankers that have caused us to go bank rupt and what about spending less on the royal family, how much must their weddings cost us?

Well we could cut MP's pay. Which would lead to those with decent transferable skills moving into other sectors leaving us with with the realloracular ones. The alternative, only the very rich and independently wealthy could afford to be politicians.

*really crap!

minciepie I take your point but do you really think if there were fewer people on benefits having lots of children our taxes would actually be lower? The corrupt warmongering politicians and the greedy bankers would just find some other way of bleeding ordinary working people dry. It is not the OP's step-SIL who is causing all the financial problems....but i will stop there as I am moving on to a totally new topic!