to wonder where you are going to put the children?

[Unacceptable]

I read on here (and hear in RL) so often the delightful phrase

"don't have children if you can't afford them" or some similar line, always when putting down families who claim benefits.

Parents who at one time could afford to have DC but then through a change in circumstance: be it a DH deciding he'd actually rather bugger off and live the life of Riley without contributing towards his DC (my situation) or a DH being diagnosed with a terminal illness (close friend) can no longer support DC without some assistance shouldn't have those DC as they can't afford them?

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

Actually, could the strapline be directed at men and say, 'You shouldn't have had children if you were going to leave them?'

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

I think people who say that are usually aiming it at people who go ahead and have children already knowing in advance that they cannot support them financially and/or do not have adequate housing for them.

I am not defending those people, or siding with them necessarily. Merely pointing out that the two situations are totally different, and the comment probably has very little to do with the two scenarios you are talking about in your OP.

I really don't mean that sarah, I wouldn't want to live in a country where only the well off could reproduce, how awful.

The above are just examples of some of the things that can be done to protect yourself as much as possible in a very difficult financial world. The financial independence as far as possible being key.

I personally think it is a great shame and disgrace that people working hard in minimum wage jobs should need benefits to survive and have a family, it's not fair on them or society as a whole. I don't however want that to stop a loving couple who emotionally have a lot to give from having children.

"AIBU to wonder where you are going to put the children?"

Who, me? Where am I going to put what children? Yours? I'm not going to put them anywhere.

YABU because your title makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't seem to have much in relation to what you posted.

The advice don't have children... is not the same as your children should be taken away, if that's what you are trying to imply.

I completely agree line, that is why I tried to say parents and not mothers in my post, both parents should be responsible for the successful upbringing of their children, the sooner something is done to ensure that feckless parents who don't support their children are brought into line the better (more stringent and enforceable child maintenance for example).

I've had some similar comments tbh.

I should have had savings - I did, they went pretty bloody quickly when H lost his job a month before DS was born.
I should have my own job - I do.
I shouldn't have married him - well my crystal ball was fucked, what could I do.
I shouldn't have left him - he cheated on me but thanks for making me feel just a little bit more shitty about it than I already do.
I should have waited until I could afford to buy a house - well that's me a childless old woman.

I used to get very angry and upset but not any more. I can see it for exactly what it is. Fear. Plain and simple.

If it's my own fault it can never happen to them.

I have seen "well why did you have children/get pregnant then" many, many times on here when people's circumstances have changed and it infuriates me. I started a thread about it a couple of months ago actually. So it isn't just aimed at feckless layabouts that keep churning babies out despite their shaky circumstances at all.

I'm beginning to think the populace is being softened up to accept the reintroduction of the workhouse.

There is no political will whatsoever to call the feckless that abandon their children to account. The Cecil Parkinson model of parenting is that favoured by those in power.

Indeed one of this government's first acts was to impose punative fees on parents who ask the CSA to handle maintenance payments as their ex's are being unreasonable (unfair as the CSA is completely ineffective against the "won't pay" brigade).

Going back to the 3 generations thing, I have been involved with families who have three generations on benefits so they do exist. When these things are investigated is it just unemployment benefit? Families are usually a mix of disability/unemployment benefits.

Randall yes, I think it's probably fear, too.

If it can happen to me - job, house, PhD yada yada, didn't stop my relentless descent into an endless struggle of lone parenthood and too many early grey hairs - then it can happen to anyone.

I do get fab support mostly on MN, though. I wish I'd found it earlier tbh.

What worra said.
I've only ever heard it in RL when it's clearly referring to people who have children knowing they can't support them

You do read some strange things from a minority on MN, and sometimes an occasional poster might say people shouldnt have kids unless they know 100% in advance they can support them to adulthood (which is indeed daft) but equally you get some occasional posts the other way- I was reading on relationships earlier from a woman desperate to have another child to satisfy her whims even though her relationship was screwed.

The majority of people are sensibly in the middle though, and would offer nothing but support to those whom life has dealt a harsh hand, but aren't sympathetic to people who selfishly churn out kids to satisfy their own whims when they can't adequately support (whether it's financially OR emotionally) the ones theyve got. And I emphasise the emotional aspect, Because there are people out there who may have a large enough house and can provide materially, but carry on having kids because they like babies but have scant regard for the emotional well being of the older ones. The UK is a first world Country: we don't have kids to send out to work or support us in our old age- lets be honest, bringing children into an over populated world is ultimately selfish- I don't mean in a terrible way, but it's about fulfilling our wants basically

It's been said to me on here enough, ignoring the fact that when I had my first 3 DC's, I was the main earner, working in a good job, no benefits except Child Benefit, High Rate Tax Payer, buying my own house blah blah blah.

Then I was dxd with epilepsy and my life turned on a dime.

My insurances refused to pay out as they said my epilepsy was an undeclared pre-existing condition that had been misdiagnosed (which was true, but there was no way of ME knowing that it had been misdxd).

I lost my career as it was barred by law to anyone with epilepsy. I then lost my home. My partner at the time was unable to earn even 1/3 of what I had previously been earning.

So, I ended up in social housing, on benefits, with 3 DC's that I could no longer 'afford'.

WTF was I meant to do at that point - give them up for adoption?!

Oh I shouldn't have bothered typing all that - in future I am just going to follow Worra around the board, going 'What she said'

It's easier.

Oh - before my dx I even HAD £20k savings in the bank.

What people don't realise, or seem not to, is that while you have savings over £6,000, you can't claim ANY benefits, and are expected to live off your savings, and even when your savings dwindle to £6000, you only get a 'reduced rate' of benefits until your savings are under £1000.

It only takes your washing machine and your fridge freezer to break down for that last £1000 to go and leave you with nothing.

So even people who HAVE got substantial savings will be screwed eventually in certain circumstances!

Oh absolutely, the support definitely far out ways the knobbers!

I'm always grateful that I was an MNer when it all happened. I honestly think things would be very different without this bonkers place.

I'm luck in that although my H was a crappy husband he's a lovely dad. He does buy things for DS when he can (bits of food, nappies sometimes) and looks after him for the 2 days a week I'm in work. Yes he could do more but in all honesty he's pretty skint himself. He's still not found regular work after a year and a half.

It's a crappy situation all round, there were no winners that's for sure.

(So sorry about your situation )

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

be responsible for the ones you have as best you can and don't have more until you are able to provide for them.

Another thing that crops up periodically on here are posts from women who want a 3rd/4th child but their dh doesn't, and they ask 'AIBU to cajole or even trick him into having one?'
So although I am sympathetic to those who've been dealt a shit hand, there are also people out there (women and men) who are prepared to have a child against the will of the other parent, which frankly is a disaster in the making

Some people are never in the position to put all or even any of those protections in place.

As a society the nurturing of our children should be paramount. For our own sake, for our own children's sake and for society as a whole. When we punish people for having children but not jobs or wealth then we perpetuate social problems.

I don't think anyone truly suggests children are in any way to blame for their circumstances or that they should be punished for them. I would hope that all people agree that children should be supported. That means providing support for parenting and parents, in whatever way it is needed. We don't do nearly enough and hardly too much as some seem to think.

People who parrot 'they shouldn't have children unless they can afford it' can fuck the fuck off quite frankly.

They are a bigger part of the problem than any number of families living in poverty.

X-posted with everyone.

That was to Line but applied to Couthy too

And Matilda obvs!

bochead I agree. This govt are steering us back to Victorian times.

What Booyhoo said. It's always "Oh no, I didn't mean you, it's all those feckless scroungers on the estate over there that are the problem"

9 years down the line from my dx, and I'm too disabled to work, I am caring for 4 DC's, 3 also have dxd disabilities.

YES, I had one more DC that I couldn't 'afford' to support - because I had a contraception failure due to my epilepsy meds, and I couldn't bring myself to terminate. I WASN'T a Lone Parent at the time - my Ex partner left when that child was 4 months old. To ensure that doesn't happen again, I am getting sterilised, and abstaining in the meantime.

It's not fun, I've been celibate for 2 years now, but it's what I have to do to ensure I have no further DC's. Nit everyone has enough self control to do that for two years in their 20's or 30's.

I can see their point. It's natural to want to have a relationship with someone and for that relationship to have a sexual element. And contraceptive accidents DO happen, even to MC mums that DO have enough money (currently) to support an extra DC. So why is that expected to be any different for a woman on benefits?

Is it just that if you are on benefits, you should either be sterilised or abstain for the entire time you are on benefits to ensure no contraceptive accidents, or that if you are on benefits and have a contraceptive accident, you should automatically terminate?

I'm quite sure that these women on benefits didn't manage to fall pregnant alone without a man's input. So why is it ALWAYS the woman's fault? Why is it ALWAYS the woman who seemingly gets castigated for having another DC that she 'can't afford' while the man gets hardly any censure for creating another DC then buggering off and not supporting that DC adequately?

It boils my piss tbh, that it's always the woman in the wrong, without anyone thinking about the fact that she didn't get that way alone.

Why do women have to be made MORE responsible for having had another child whilst on benefits when the men should be treated as equally responsible? I've never understood that.

It's not as if the Government makes it so that the father that has fucked off is equally responsible for childcare costs to ensure the Mother's ability to work, is it?

If that was the case, I could guarantee you that many more Lone Parents would be out at work, if they were only responsible for half of the crippling costs of childcare.

And anyway - if you had to be able to support your child independently, without recourse to Tax Credirs, ANYONE working in a NMW job would be unable to EVER have DC's.

SOMEBODY HAS to do these NMW jobs. Should they not be allowed to have DC's simply because their employer doesn't pay them a LIVING WAGE.