Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Am I a spiteful cow or would this piss you off too?

227 replies

Flamemenow · 24/01/2012 20:39

I know this seems unkind but I really need a rant about my friend.

My friend was in a 'friends with benefits' relationship with a single man and as a result she had an unplanned pregnancy. He did not want her to have the child and said if she did he would not want to have anything to do with it. She wanted to have the baby so they agreed that he would not have to see the child or support it financially.

When the child was born, my friend claimed the benefits she was entitled to as a single mother. She put on the forms that she did not know who the father was.

Two years later she had another child with the same man, under the same circumstances. They have never lived together or even dated. She now lives off benefits whilst she raises two children. She has had part time jobs over the years to supplement her income but usually gives them up after a few months.

When I think about this it really pisses me off that I am paying to feed and clothe this man's children. I don't see why I should just because they 'came to a private agreeement over finances'.

He still lives in the same town and although they don't see each other anymore, she hears all about what he's up to and he seems to have plenty of spare cash - (lovely house, expensive car, holiday 3 times a year, etc.)

Sometimes I get the urge to anonymously grass on her but that would be a really nasty thing to do. Or would it?

OP posts:
awomenscorned · 24/01/2012 22:55

But its the spermy whos a shit? Non?

ChaoticAngel · 24/01/2012 22:56

squeakytoy "As someone who had a birth certificate with "father unknown" on it, when my birth mother knew exactly who he was.... I know damn well how shit that feels to be that child."

My "father's" name isn't on my BC, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

OP If the DC are now teenagers why would you grass on them now? Confused

GypsyMoth · 24/01/2012 22:56

But she pays tax herself when working!!! And the dc father works and pays tax too!!

SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 22:57

So if you have mh problems you don't genuinely need help then?
Of course it would be much better if she was left destitute on the streets and her kids in care. I'm sure that wouldn't cost the taxpayer a lot at all Hmm. And would be an entirely moral way to deal with the mentally ill Hmm

SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:01

We could also save the nhs a bit of cash to by getting lay people off the internet to decide if people are unable to work through ill health or not. I'm sure they're much better at it than doctors.

Flamemenow · 24/01/2012 23:02

I'm not going to grass - it wouldn't make a difference anyway apparently.

The children are young teens.

I am not a total idiot, I do realise that she may be depressed, her life is difficult. But she changes doctors regularly to, and surgeries, and the last time there was some complicated story about how her doctor refused to take her calls. She was referred for CBT but couldn't be arsed to read all the paperwork they gave her. I think she just needed someone to talk to.

OP posts:
piratecat · 24/01/2012 23:03

the law only changed recently with regard to claiming full bens and being able to get maintenance without bens being affected.

so, before this, and you say they are teens, then yes if he wasn't paying towards them she was claiming full amount. so she was then claiming from the state and lying. i can see why in that case it doesn't seem right that a parent hasn't contributed to the children, ,or the pot if he (especially if ) he is working.

not saying who the father was allowed her, (before the changes) to get full bens and whatever he may have or not given her privately.

and yes i am a single mum, and my ex dh pays nothing, becuase he is a student.

GypsyMoth · 24/01/2012 23:04

Not going to grass to whom? And about what?

You never answered that op.....grass to who??

awomenscorned · 24/01/2012 23:04

Your title is apt, yes you are.

GrownUp2012 · 24/01/2012 23:06

Is it possible that she is mentally ill but not considered mentally ill enough to go onto long term sickness benefits, therefore every six months they stop the claim (after the medical) and she has to find work, however because she has mental health problems she ends up being signed off again, and so the cycle goes.

Having been on incapacity myself, and failing the medical by one point, being far too ill to actually responsibly sort the mess out, trying to work, then ending up sacked and ill again, I can see where you get stuck in a loop of being ill, trying to work, getting ill again, comes from.

ninah · 24/01/2012 23:07

what's the birth cert or maintenance got to do with benefits? absolutely nowt, nada, nil impact on them.
and yes trois is right, dad has to sign to be on cert
if he can't be arsed it stays blank

ChaoticAngel · 24/01/2012 23:07

Having now read the 4th page, I'd say Hully put it perfectly Grin

SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:07

I wonder what age the kids are? 'young teens' must be 13 and 14 at the youngest. I can't imagine kids that age needing childminders.

Flamemenow · 24/01/2012 23:08

Y'know, I said earlier that I (wrongly) thought that if the father paid towards the cost of the children, the mother could take less from the public purse. So, I thought if I told the office that provides the benefit who the dad was, they could get the money off him instead of tax payers. I now realise it doesn't work that way, so there's no point in trying.

OP posts:
SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:09

It is very common for sufferers from depression to suffer from recurrent bouts of the illness btw.

ninah · 24/01/2012 23:09

some friend

GypsyMoth · 24/01/2012 23:10

It so doesn't work that way!! Lol at your naivety though

SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:10

In fact make that 13 and 15 as there is a 2 year gap.

Flamemenow · 24/01/2012 23:10

The youngest is 13. The two children cannot be left alone together because they fight so the older one can't look after the younger one.

OP posts:
SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:12

Well couldn't they do stuff with friends or something? A 15 year old should be babysitting not being babysat.

therehastobemore · 24/01/2012 23:13

ok, so it is a different picture you are painting now - at first the woman was a bit of a trollop who had a "friend with benefits" and now the picture is of a vulnerable woman with mental health issues, or is she faking those? Im a bit confused if im honest? You don't much like this friend of yours do you?

tethersend · 24/01/2012 23:13

I for one am shocked and saddened that you could treat an imaginary friend so harshly.

Have you no compassion?

SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:14

Have you been full of resentment for all these years then op? Why do you still bother with the woman? You clearly think very little of her.

SecretMinceRinser · 24/01/2012 23:14

Grin tethersend

MeltedChocolate · 24/01/2012 23:19

Oh for goodness sake.

She has probably changed the benefits she is on from Income Support (don't need to look for a job) to Jobseekers (supposed to but easy to avoid jobs). She can not be lying about her children to Job centre. They would change her benefits automatically or after a meeting with her.

Don't be friends with this person. You clearly don't like them, are jealous and spiteful.

Swipe left for the next trending thread