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

[Flamemenow]

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?

And quite aside from the issue of what exactly is morally wrong with a woman having children willingly outside of a relationship (which is an interesting discussion but off on a tangent), just how representative do people think this fabricated caricature is of most single mothers?

Most are mid-30s, separated or divorced and working. Unmarried teenage mums account for less than 2% of single mothers.

OTOH 60% of NRPs (92% of whom are male) pay no maintenance whatsoever. Of those who pay via the CSA, over half of them pay £5 a week or a big fat £0.

Still think we should be targetting the mothers - the ones who are actually living up to their responsibilities by caring for their children often on little or no money (despite working lone parents are 2x more likely to be living in poverty).

What on earth has it got to do with you? There are thousands out there doing things like this. They are just tiny fish in a giant ocean of bigger fish and I'll let others have the bun fight.
As long as they are not hurting you directly then forget it.

sunshineandbooks what exactly is morally wrong with a woman having children willingly outside of a relationship

I have never said that there is anything wrong with a woman having children outside of a relationship. That is not what this thread is about.

It's about adults producing children without any intention of being able to provide for them.

Aparently this is not only acceptable, but everyone's right. Not sure who would pay for it if we all took up that right though.

So what IS this thread about then? The fact that she has mental illness and cannot work and therefore claims benefits?

I didnt read anywhere that there was a concious decision to have these children - i am assuming that they were the result of contraception failure or lack of contraception.

Thing it, what comes across here is not - this man is not taking responsibility for his children, its this woman shouldn't have had the children, as they seem to be "accidents" are you suggesting she should have aborted?

Strange you should mention the cash in hand working so late in the thread op

Anything else you'd like to drip feed? Does she drown puppies for her own sick amusement? I know - she's that woman who put the cat in the bin isn't she!

So what IS this thread about then?

It's about adults producing children without any intention of being able to provide for them.

I have said plenty of times that the man is equally responsible. He absolutely did not want to have children so he should have made absolutely sure he didn't create any.

I suspect that she may have wanted a child. She may have thought he would stay with them despite what he said, who knows. She has told me that they were both accidents because they didn't think she would be able to get pregnant. I don't know what contraception, if any, they used. She didn't say and I didn't ask. She had the first child aged 25 the second around 27. He is about ten years older.

I absolutely think this man should take responsibility for his children. I thought that was clear. I have said it several times. I think we all agree on that one.

"Aparently this is not only acceptable, but everyone's right."

Apparently?

From the UN Universal declaration of Human Rights:

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Try as I might, I cannot find the caveat which says, as long as they have enough money to provide for them. Of course, they may have taken it out once they realised that this would prohibit some countries reproducing at all. Yeah. That's probably it.

Although I can't find the bit about 'responsibilities' either, so maybe I'm just reading it wrong...

I thought that if you were in receipt of benefits and named the father the CSA automatically would charge them maintenance (with the same amount being reduced from benefits) is that not how it works?

not any more gracie

Strange you should mention the cash in hand working so late in the thread

Well, tbh I personally do think she is playing the system. But I didn't want to start the thread with a 'list of complaints' because it would seem I am getting at her when in fact I was just pissed off that she claims money which could be provided by the father of the child instead of the state.

I don't care whether mothers are single
I don't care whether people claim benefits when they need them
I don't care whether people have children outside of a relationship
I don't care whether people use sperm donors

I do care when people have children with no intention of providing for them. I think it makes a mockery of the welfare state. I don't think that is what human rights activists intended.

And where would the money come from if we all decided to do that?

So what you are saying op is that your 'friend' should have aborted her unplanned pregnancy on the off chance she became too ill to work in the future?
Well christ in that case no-one should have kids in case the parent/s become to ill to work/die or something before they are 18. Maybe it could be permitted if you can prove you have savings to support the child for 18 years. But then what if the 18 yr old became too ill to work? I suppose in a civilised country we would be expected to foot the bill rather than leave them to starve?
I'm coming round to your way of thinking now op. No-one should have kids - just in case.

I what way did your friend have no intention of supporting her kids? You have said she has either been in work or signed off WHEN TOO SICK TO WORK! If people who are too ill to work don't deserve to be supported by the state in your opinion then I'd love to hear who does!

I wouldn't worry about everyone suddenly wanting to claim income support op. The vast majority of people don't chose to scrape by on the minimum amount of money they need to survive. I know I wouldn't fancy it and I suspect the majority of people wouldn't either.

Grassing him up would be the right thing to do for the reasons you give.

Cycling Christ.

"I don't think that is what human rights activists intended."

Yeah, they're probably kicking themselves.

Why not give Amnesty a ring and let them know the horrific side effects of their work?

Oh FGS, this has to be an imaginary person created solely to give you a soapbox, no-one analyses their friends like this...surely?

Thanks Katie

therehastobemore would you mind PLEASE telling us why she is your friend?

Because I like her! I just don't agree with some of the choices she has made in her life but it doesn't mean I don't like her.

We have fun together, her dcs are similar ages to mine and get on ok. I have helped her out loads with childcare and had her children to stay when she is too ill to look after them. My dp even looked after her children as well as ours so that we could go away for a girls weekend together. She helps me out too, we go to exercise classes together or out with other friends. We have a laugh. All the usual things a friendship is about.

It is ok to have a different opinion to your friend. And having a rant on here is a good way to express my feelings without hurting hers.

I'm sorry - you are not a good friend. Accusing her of faking her mental illness isn't the same as one of you liking Coronation St and one of you liking Eastenders.

blimey, id be devestated if i thought someone i was that close to had such a low opinion of me. There is actually a difference with disagreeing with peoples life choices and keeping it to yourself and spouting off on here. I can't understand why this has become such an issue for you after such a long time? Have you had an epiphany, or fallen out with your friend?

So given the unprecedented level of posting about benefits, caps, single mothers and disability (including MH) on MN today you didn't feel just a tad nervous about posting about your single-parent, depression suffering, benefit-recipient 'friend'?

One of your points confuses me op:

You say she has worked part time on and off, keeps getting herself signed off with depression, is that correct?

Up until very recently (couple of years max I would say), single parents with children under 16 didn't have to claim Jobseekers. They could claim Income Support. They were encouraged to work but not forced, and didn't have to provide any proof of jobsearch as you have to when "signing on".

So why, when she had it so cushy, would she even have bothered to get a job at all only to "get herself" signed off sick? It's not easy to come on and off benefit..it really buggers your finances up and five or six years ago there was a huge backlog with tax credits..people weren't getting them for months after starting a new job. I know, I was one of them. I had to pay for childcare on a credit card for three months. The constant stress didn't do my depression much good either, I can tell you that!

Now I just know you're going to say all these jobs she's had have been within the last couple of years. If that's the case it's very possible she's on JSA and being forced into jobs she cant cope with under threat of being sanctioned. In that scenario I would think she should be on ESA rather than JS.

thefroggy She has worked on and off either legitimately or cash in hand to supplement her income. It wasn't too bad when the children were little because she could put them into childcare in the school holidays but once they got older, they didn't want to go. She usually works up until the summer holidays, then goes off sick for the summer. She takes the children camping and days out to the beach, etc. Then she goes back to work. But twice recently she has been called into account by personnel, so she just resigned the job.

You are right, it does mean a change to her benefits and she has to fill out more forms but she doesn't seem to mind this.

She gave up a council house for a job with accommodation a few years ago and when they questioned her about her sickness, she left. She had a really difficult time getting rehoused but is sorted now in a (dare I say it) brand new 3 bedroom house.

Do you know what, big business wastes so much more money than your friend? Why not get pissed off at them instead of picking on vulnerable people?

I'm not pissed off at her wasting money, I'm pissed off at adults producing children when they know they can't provide for them.

But I had made that clear already.

The lack of personal responsibility shown by people who do this has such an impact on society. But our current laws say that it's ok so people will continue to behave irresponsibly and let others pick up the pieces.

There is no middle ground here, that's clear. You either agree or you don't. Contraception is readily available. Education is readily available. Why is there no law to say parents should be responsible for their children. It's madness.

There is no middle ground here, that's clear.

You either agree or you don't.

sunshine Why should I be nervous about posting? Not sure what you meant there.

"She gave up a council house for a job with accommodation a few years ago and when they questioned her about her sickness, she left."

Could she have a serious mental illness and be too embarrassed to say so? That could also account for her description of the relationship with the children's father. It may be that she is using bravado to mask how vulnerable she really was and possibly still is.