AIBU to expect a Mother of older teens to go out and worK?

[doglover17]

One child well into their teens, walks to school. Shared 50/50 care with Father (ex). Lives off child maintenance, spousal, tax credits and child benefits. Has had a few part time jobs in the past but never sticks at them. Now declares they should not have to work. Is it unreasonable to expect them to find more independence through finding employment? If so why? And outside of this scenario, what sort of case would make it unreasonable?

I know the in work model costs more
I agree whenshewasbad, that is why I keep plugging away - I would rather be talking to my kids about job interviews/quals and start up businesses than be not working at all - purely to model a better future for them.

Stopwithallthe which woman will be job seeking?

Single adults without dc receive sweet FA in benefits

They get jobseekers and housing benefit which this woman will be getting. If she's not getting jobseekers then she isnt getting benefits.

No pagwatch op said tax credits working tax credits are only available to those who work child taxcredits are available to all those who qualify for them whether they work or not .

This is why people worry about the amount that goes on benefits (would be interesting to see pensions costs separated out).

Tax breakdown for £25,500 salary

£2,080 Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits)
£1,094 on the NHS
£824 on Education
£339 on Defence
£160 on the Police
£44 on Prisons
£92 on Roads
£71 on Railways

margot The woman who torment's OP's existence.

If she only has 50% care and the kid goes to school, she has plenty of time to work part time and support herself.

Long term, she will need income once child maintenance stops and the longer out of the workforce, the harder it will be for her. Retiring in poverty isn't a good situation to be in.

I stopped working when DD started secondary. Tried to change my full time hours to start earlier and finish earlier but was not allowed to so had to quit. Jobs during school hours are like gold dust and are rarely available and if they are there are 100 million applicants.

DD and the younger DSs had been in paid after school care all through primary. At secondary, that was not available. She could stay at homework club at her own volition until half 5 when I could pick her up but would she hell. She was involved with a group of girls who were shoplifting and generally causing mayhem in the town centre after school.

Lucky I was around for her actually as her teenage years have been hell and she needed me to be there for her after school which socially she found very difficult. I had to have lots of communcations/meetings with the school.

Now my 12 year DSs are at secondary and one has LD's and I really can not rely on him to make the 3 miles home on his own and be responsible enough to not cause himself any harm until 5.30pm!

It is difficult but really I think secondary school is more complicated when both parents are working, or a single parents is working, than primary school where there is wrap around childcare that they can't just walk out from not to mention the teenage angst and issues that crop up that are difficult to find time to deal with on top of everything else.

nigellas I'm really sorry I read your post as it costs (tax payers money)more to have person x in work than out of work therefore we should let them languish on benefits. Apologies

Anyway I think ADishBestEatenCold makes some very good points upthread.

Stopwiththehaha Against his will? Are you saying she stole his sperm

Spousal maintenance, as opposed to child maintenance, is awarded by the court to pay to keep a former husband or wife after the marriage has ended. It is only awarded if one party cannot support themselves without payments from the other. I don't think I would feel very comfortable with myself having a former husband paying for me so I could have the luxury of not working, and having to force him to do so by court order.

NigellasDealer but if she were working she would still have to be supported by the state - can people not grasp this? what's the difference?

I'm sure people can grasp this but I'm sure you're also aware of families who have no history of working generation after generation. I agree that for many, work barely pays any more, but it still gets you out of the house, makes you independent, etc and of course there is always the possibility that you might be able to develop your career like the many women that do have jobs that pay. I know two single mothers, one works in a high paid job for the BBC and the other is a solicitor. Although I admit it sounds unlikely in the OP's example, as the pattern of not working seems to be so ingrained and successive governments have created a system to perpetuate it.

Thanks ever so much everyone. I am still here and reading! It is great to have so many replies and I do appreciate it, so keep them coming. It is very helpful to me.

ps. For what it's worth, yes you can claim child tax credits if unemployed but I am personally less interested in the nitty gritty more the bigger picture and peoples view. Many thanks.

Stopwith maybe it wasn't clear in my post but it was meant to be from the perspective of the non-working woman, so they are one and the same.

no problem whenshewasbad - it is all about tone and reading / writing text does not allow that!!

successive governments have created a system to perpetuate it
exactly and so a scapegoat class has been created along with immigrants - we should rise above it!!

It is only awarded if one party cannot support themselves without payments from the other and is usually based on the arrangement that couple had prior to separation that meant one person earned less or nothing to allow the other to further their career and earning potential. I you build your career and earnings off someone else's back you have to acknowledge that and accept that some of yor earnings were earned by them and should go to them.

I'm afraid op, you've chosen the only forum ever who siupports this.
OF COURSE she should be working. It's not even worth discussing.

Not true - I do not agree that clear and obvious lazy scroungers should be supported at tax-payers' expense just because they can't be bothered to do anything at all to help themselves and it's easier to live off benefits just because they can. But the OP knows nothing of this person's life, she doesn't know if this person is actually able to work. And any possible medical (or other) conditions are that person's business, and hers alone, not that of the OP who is perhaps making a possibly unfounded judgement.

The Benefits system is there as a safety net to help people as and when they need it. It is not for Joe Public to decide who should and shouldn't receive it, based simply on what they might surmise.

I wish people were more up in arms about the large companies who avoid paying their Corporate Taxes, and about the Government bailing out failing banks. If only people could direct their anger at THOSE issues instead of fretting about what a neighbour may or may not be claiming something he/she may or may not be entitled to (and in most cases, quite legitimately), then this country would be far better off.

steps off soap-box to make a cup of tea

Stopwith maybe it wasn't clear in my post but it was meant to be from the perspective of the non-working woman, so they are one and the same.

Oh you were clear. I know what you meant, however its still not the same. The woman the OP describes will be job hunting so wont be saying she cant be arsed to work, will she?

Nigellasdealer - I am a single parent, who works, so I do have a very good idea what it is like.

Not all single parents claim tax credits or get housing benefit, so I think you are generalising a bit. I have worked full time since my DS was 2 and I pay my mortgage and bills with no help from my Ex or the tax payer.

People can make their own choices in life, but I don't see why my tax (and I pay plenty) should go to support someone who chooses not to work. I am more than happy for my contribution to go to all those people out there who need a bit of extra help, when they are working hard to support their families.

well it's not really any of the ex partner's wives business, is it? Any man who walks out on one family and starts family no.2 with someone else, should rememeber that family no.1 are top priority. In other words, don't have more offspring with new partner if you're going to struggle to support family no. 1 and the new offspring.

Errr how on earth do you know that it was the husband that walked out!? Could be that the wife had an affair/was abusive. It does happen you know!

I have a friend who has a teenager and a preteen. Another mum at school seems to think she needs a job and is always handing her application forms etc.

What the inconsiderate cow has never been told is my friend is a carer for her housebound mother. There have been a few times I've been dropping my ds off when she's raced into the playground out of breath and panicking. It's usually that her brother who does the morning check on their mum as he lives down the road has found their mum in a bad way. Ironically I've always had my car on those mornings, so give her a lift as by the time she waits on a bus it would take much longer.

Her husband works and pays his taxes and she is caring for her mum while running 2 houses. It's no one else's business really why my friend is unable to work.

And personally I think teens need a lot more emotional support during their education as the pressure piles on etc.

Quite often spousal maintenance is only awarded whist the children are at school/for a set period of time. The wife could therefore find herself very much stuck when it ends along with her other child related benefits.

If the Spousal Maintenance is no longer affordable for the ex husband OP then they do have the option of going back to court and getting it varied. There would have to be a change in circumstances to do this though. If he did, the judge would expect the ex wife to at least be looking for work, unless there were disabilities that prevented her from doing so.

YABU

her business. I also agree teens often need a lot of supervision if they have SN, MH issues etc and even if they don't. She could have MH issues.

Ok.
I don't know much about benefits.

nothing inherently moral about work

whether she works or not she will still get child benefit and tax credits, except she will get working tax credits as well

presumably she is not on income support/job seekers as this is not mentioned

if she has a spousal maintenance order, it is between her and her ex, nothing to do with anyone else

I think it's really not possible to know why another woman chooses to work or stay at home, and it's not really up to others outside the household to judge or have a say in it, so in that way YABU.

Similarly, of course, if you are the current partner of a man who pays CM and you exercise your own choice to stay at home, and that in turn affects the amount of your household's income available to the previous partner's household - well, you are likewise entitled to make your own choices.

After a split, parents (and their partners) are entitled to make choices regarding career and lifestyle just like anyone else. Of course, in a perfect world, they would bear responsibility for those choices and adjust their life accordingly, but it's not a perfect world and some people will always be shits.