Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

239 replies

doglover17 · 30/06/2014 11:27

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?

OP posts:
Stripyhoglets · 30/06/2014 21:03

Well your partner really doesn't need to be payîng this, if she tries to move away you apply for full residency. He only has to support child through the CSA, she has had time to get back on her feet and get earning. He needs advice on this to get a fair settlement.

Gruntfuttock · 30/06/2014 21:04

YouMakeMeHappy "I'd be annoyed if I knew that someone didn't work when there was nothing stopping them. I don't understand how any taxpayer wouldn't be annoyed"

I had my first and only child when I was 37 and haven't gone out to work since. It's beyond me why you would be annoyed about that. FYI, the only benefit I have ever received is child benefit, to which everyone who gives birth in the UK is entitled. It's none of your business whether I have a job or not. Jobs are few and far between where I live and I don't see the point in taking a job when someone else may need it.

NoodleOodle · 30/06/2014 21:11

I'm with you on this OP. YANBU. If you can only afford to be a SAHM whilst relying on the state than you should get off your arse and get a job! Fair enough if you have young children and the childcare costs outweigh the benefits of going back to work but if you have teenagers that are able to be left for a couple of hours after school then that is just sheer laziness. I'll probably get flamed on here for thinking that but that's my opinion.

If going out to work would cost the taxpayer more, and still leave the child less time being raised by their mother, would you still want them to do it Monkey?

Kind of off topic but, just want to understand your view.

SirChenjin · 30/06/2014 21:19

Are you talking short, medium or long term Noodle?

SirChenjin · 30/06/2014 21:22

Grunt - I suspect that poster was talking about people who aren't supporting themselves through a private income, through savings, or via another adult who is willing to support them from the money they earn - as opposed to someone who is living off benefits or another adult to whom they were once married and who has no desire to continue supporting them, as opposed to earning their own money.

Chunderella · 30/06/2014 21:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tangerinefairy · 30/06/2014 21:40

Sorry, i can't read anymore of this! How can it possibly be right for a 50/50 parent to say to the other "I should not have to work, you have to keep me in the manner to which I have become accustomed"!!!! I am stunned that people are trying to justify this. There is no way on earth you would be doing so if the genders were reversed. It is totally unacceptable and yes, the op is actually sort of supporting this person who refuses to get a job and it is completely out of order.

I have always worked, both as a single parent and now not a single parent. If i became a single parent again I would continue work, there is no way on earth that I would try to sponge off my ex partner for the rest of my life, it is outrageous.

SirChenjin · 30/06/2014 22:00

It's not right Tangerine - and you make the same point I did upthread. If this was a woman working to pay for an ex-h who had decided he didn't fancy working, and that she was to continue paying for him to sit on his bum, there would be an outcry.

EarthWindFire · 30/06/2014 22:13

If she or her partner are supporting themselves what's the problem!

They aren't supporting themselves they are living off spousal maintenance and benefits.

OooOooTheMonkey · 30/06/2014 22:23

Noodle I can't answer that question because I can't understand how going out to work would cost the tax payer more than her being a SAHM? Do you mean in working families tax credits?

OooOooTheMonkey · 30/06/2014 22:27

Also - I am on mat leave at the moment and am very lucky that I am going back to work 2 days a week when dd is 9 months. Then full time when she is a year old. She will be going to nursery and MILs. I am entitled to FA in tax credits working or otherwise.

This is totally off topic because in this case the ex H is paying for her to sit on her arse too.

But just to put you in the picture about my situation so you can understand my opinion.

MistressDeeCee · 01/07/2014 03:05

Its so often the way for new partner to come along, view situation, and then judge the ex woman. The man, of course is the poor little lamb who has been taken for a ride and didnt know his legal rights at all...

People can moralise, say what they like about what this woman should or shouldn't be doing - but if she isn't working and the ex DP is supporting her then thats what he chose to do. He isn't green. & its not necessary to teach a grown man to suck eggs...they already know what they're about.

This man was and is supporting his ex because he wants to. That is all. & I suspect without the OP's momentum, he would continue with arrangement exactly as it is. Id be amazed if all this actually gets sorted out but can only hope it is for OPs sake.

Personally I think its a lot of hassle to go through for someone who's priority is another. I couldn't be asked.

mnistooaddictive · 01/07/2014 04:37

She should be working. Research shows that children's life chances are better when they see parents working. She is acting very entitled. Those who genuinely have reason not to work, such as carers or those with children with disabilities, that's fair enough, but that doesn't apply in this case.

chrome100 · 01/07/2014 05:58

YANBU. She should earn money and pay tax if she is able

Imbroglio · 01/07/2014 07:05

It's impossible to judge individual situations without knowing more, but in general I have always wanted to work rather than rely on benefits/payments from ex- because:

  • it makes me feel more secure in the long term
  • more money available for children and better quality of life for them, on balance
  • better role model
  • more interesting life for me

However, it does depend on the situation. If one of my children had additional needs or the only work was shit pay and shit hours it might not be the right choice.

MargotLovedTom · 01/07/2014 07:09

MistressDeeCee I don't think he wants to pay her all this money at all! The ex has threatened to take the dd and move miles away if he reduces/stops paying her this money.

SirChenjin · 01/07/2014 07:57

Eactly Margot - he doesn't want to continue paying, and hasn't for some time. The OP explains all that upthread.

SirChenjin · 01/07/2014 08:02

Paying for the ex to sit at home and not work for her living that is, as opposed to not paying for his DC.

StealthPolarBear · 01/07/2014 08:13

I still dont understand the commebt aboit if she got a job the state would still be aupporting her? Unless the poster meant nhs treatment, roads, bins etc

EarthWindFire · 01/07/2014 08:15

Paying for the ex to sit at home and not work for her living that is, as opposed to not paying for his DC.

Exactly

EarthWindFire · 01/07/2014 08:17

I still dont understand the commebt aboit if she got a job the state would still be aupporting her? Unless the poster meant nhs treatment, roads, bins etc

Maybe because they are assuming that she would be on nmw, so would get top up benefits. The OP however has said that she is highly qualified, so this would probably not be the case.

sydlexic · 01/07/2014 08:40

To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.

There is not enough money for those with genuine need because some feel they have a right to an easy life at the expense of the state.

They are the people who create benefit bashing that honest people in need have to live with.

pickles184 · 01/07/2014 08:48

I simply can't understand how anyone could say that an able bodied person is quite justified in sponging off the state and their ex is beyond me.
One older child/teenager is not a full time job and she doesn't even have them full time if it were?
The only time it is IMO acceptable for someone to be not working is if they are physically incapable or wealthy enough to be able to do so without relying on payouts from the

Benefits should be about helping people out in emergencies and
supporting vunerable people. It should not be being abused by lazy individuals who feel that having a child should be a free meal ticket.

Just to be clear I am not suggesting that people on benefits are scroungers or the like, merely pointing out that it is the lazy people abusing the system who give the rest a bad name.

OP YANBU to be frustrated by this individuals behaviour, I'm surprised that so many support her

victrixludorem · 01/07/2014 10:10

Did I miss where the OP said that this woman is "sponging of the state"? As I read it (could have missed parts), the woman concerned has maintenance from her exH (being the OP's new DH) that they have together agreed. ExH's new wife, the OP, wants to cut that down so he can go on more expensive holidays with her. Whilst I believe that work is good for the soul, it is each to their own and the OP knew that her DH already had a first family to support when she got involved with him. I reckon she is on dodgy territory trying to get him to reduce agreed maintenance payments when he doesn't seem to want to. She could have married someone without dependents if this was so important to her.

victrixludorem · 01/07/2014 10:12

If OTOH the woman is claiming benefits, and is able to work, then I agree with pickles.