To feel a little sorry for the 7 children benefits Mum.

[MilgramsLittleHelper]

www.itv.com/daybreak/hottopics/benefits-mum/

Is just seems like another bit of benefit bashing to me.

I know she shouldn't have had children she couldn't afford, but what hope of improving her lot???

Ooh x-post with Beer (except you said it all poash)!

I did?

Really?

Nothing like projection on MN. You gotta love reading between the lines and fabricating what isn't there.

Hice, I dinny know...I'm gonny google

dementedma do you have two children with disabilities severe enough to warrant Carers Allowance.? If not then you cannot compare your situation to this woman.

Okay so children sometimes follow the parent, well it's apparent that this family at one time had someone employed and earning enough to pay a mortgage so it's by no means certain that they will just grow up and be any kind of burden on society. The two who have disabilities might always need some kind of support and rightly so.

It's all the more reason though why we need as a society to work with families who live in difficult situations to ensure children reach their potential. I volunteer with an education charity locally who work with families where there are literacy and numeracy issues (sometimes these are the least if the issues). Just helping a person to achieve a small goal sometimes spurs them on to further goals and it's good for their self esteem, their confidence and their belief in education. This is fabulous for their children who can see Mum or Dad doing well and feeling good.

We have had several parents from our support services find work...one for the first time ever. Of course it's a voluntary service, nobody has to use it but it's surprising how many parents ARE coming forward and engaging with us for support. We need much much more of this kind of thing across the country.

My bloody broadband is playing up, but I'll deffo get back to you probably after the apprentice and you've been fired Holly

dawn-again perhaps read the whole thread? I have repeatedly said on here that I believe a decent society should look after the vulnerable which obviously includes the disabled. You are entirely missing the point that people have no problem with that-their issue is with people who see benefits as a lifestyle choice. Why do you deliberately fail to see the distinction

You specified carers as one of the deserving groups, this woman is a carer.

I can't believe this shocking image of THREE GENERATIONS of the same family who live off state handouts.

Maybe Gideon has a point.

Night Ashoe

Oh that was genius, tether, simply brilliant

beer

If someone is being abused and impregnated without understanding the consequences do you not think someone (state?) should step in?

I don't see that as eugenics - I see that as humanist and preventing abuse.

But of course there will be those who think that those with LDs have the right to make a choice, without understanding the consequences.

So holly, who makes this decision? Who decides where to draw the line. Is there an IQ number below which people aren't allowed to breed?

Who's going to step in, Holly? Tell me how the (state) will know this is the case?

I am on my phone. I will get back to you re; where you were hinting at genocide, dinny worry

And the other problem is, there are plenty of women being abused and impregnated without any LDs at all, but whose spirit has been so crushed by their abusive partner - and possibly their upbringing - that they can't see any other way of living. Are you going to make women do a self-esteem questionnaire before they can breed, too?

Abortion, sterilisation, dc taken into care, adopted, not allowed to breed.
Children not worthy of life.

Bloody hell, there are some really shit people on here.

And re: suggestions that she should be forced to work you are then going to have to cough up additional money to cover her child care and carer responsibilities which won't be covered if she is doing a minimum wage job.

You might feel that in the long term, getting her into work will be beneficial to her and the state. I just don't see it reducing the cost of her benefits in the next decade, and apparently the country has no money.

jake

I know you come into contact with lots of people who are in similar situations to you so FYI.

DHF/DHP. A carer has no priority with these time limited first come first served payments none at all.

However a family that contains a child with a disability can apply for exemption without having to use the DHF if the disability means the child expected to share a room with the disabled child ( even if that child is also disabled) would be subject to an unreasonable sleep disturbance because of the disability.

The child does not need to be named on a DLA claim but it helps. To do this you have to apply in writing not using any form just a letter stating that you wish to be considered for exemption and provide medical evidence a letter from a gp should be enough, this medical evidence HAS to contain something along the lines of "xyz disability causes significant night disturbances any child expected to share would be subject to significant disturbances due to this,I would not consider it reasonable for them to share".

If regular use of a none resident carer is required that would also be exemption rather than DHF.

However being turned down for exemption does not stop a DHF application afterwards.

The DHF is ideal for situations that are not ones that are covered by the two exemptions allowed for working age people ( as the exemptions for pensioners are automatic so require no request)

Oh and if the LA says you have to use DHF they are not using the most recent guidance issued on the subject.

All LA's have to follow the law and the law says they must consider exemption for none residential carers and disabled children. It does not say make them claim DHF

morethan - isn't it scary?

More Than Potato prints. You warned me about some of these posters. It really is awful and short sighted these views, every single person on here though bad luck depression or other problems could found themselves in a situation out of their control and on benefits. Once on benefits it is very difficult to come of them, it is a vicous trap, i have cousins who have been trapped on benefits, for years because of the poor education they recieved. Nobody dreams of being reliant on the state, " THE STATE HAS FAILED" not the individual SHE/HE is only doing what they need to survive. I generally thought i was "RIGHT OF CENTRE" but i think this has got nothing to do with "RIGHT OR LEFT" it is just very nasty and twisted people talking.

dawn-again perhaps read the whole thread? I have repeatedly said on here that I believe a decent society should look after the vulnerable which obviously includes the disabled. You are entirely missing the point that people have no problem with that-their issue is with people who see benefits as a lifestyle choice. Why do you deliberately fail to see the distinction?
Scuse me, not said a bloody word on this thread, other than child benefit is taken off income support and providing the link showing that their are children in the family with disabilities.
I may have quite a lot to say later, but I'm sorting out my own disabled family at the moment.

I really can't see at what point society became so bitter, twisted and jealous.
When I was growing up I was aware of a few families with 3 generations not working. Society felt sorry for them, sympathised and thanked God or (not God) this wasn't their family.
When did society become bothered about what other people have and what they don't have.
When did people think they had the right to look down on others, especially when these others were at their lowest.
I never used to hear complaints of "I don't want my tax to pay for ...." etc. Because this is so futile as nobody has a say in where their tax goes.
If people are really so angry because they feel this woman or any other benefit claimant have more than they do, they have the choice to live like this if they wish.
All the people arguing they can't afford more dc, so others shouldn't have kids if they receive benefit. Why are they more entitled to produce?
We all have pretty much the same choices in life, many don't have the opportunities that others have.

So holly, who makes this decision? Who decides where to draw the line. Is there an IQ number below which people aren't allowed to breed?

You tell me ..... do you think people should be protected or not?

We have an age number where you cant breed with those deemed children ....but there will always be some who would argue with that number.

That's why he have law makers - to protect you, me, our children and others, the MH Acts and SS to make those decisions for those unable to.

FGS the woman is a CARER. If she isn't eligible for the cap, then her BENEFITS ADVISOR is failing in their job - as the benefits advisor should have told her to contact the council to inform them that she is a Carer.