Lone parents with babies of a few MONTHS old being threatened with sanctions...

[MrsNextDoor]

here on the Gingerbread site

Bloody bastards!!!

One lone parent was told that she was being sanctioned because she'd turned down a nightshift job on account of not being able to find overnight childcare.

Others with children of 3 or 4 months old were being told they had to find work immediately or lose their benefits.

What the actual!??? In many cases, job advisers are giving their clients the wrong information....seemingly deliberately...telling them the law has changed and they must get work now....the most vulnerable people...lone parents with infants...being bullied. AIBU to think this should be stopped immediately!?

noeuf im nearly 37 weeks pregnant do you think i will find an employer who will take me on just now?

I'm afraid I agreeTracey that you will have to go on a different benefit. I had a quick look at the gov. website. And there are two types of the benefit you are on one for people in work and one for people who don't work. I think if you're not working at the present time you can't get a benefit that is for supporting people in work.

And all i said in regards to looking for work is the fact im so heavily pregnant it isnt practical

I got put on employment and support allowance work related group, i had been working towards going back to work having done several placements before i fell pregnant and 2 earlyish in my pregnancy.

Like others have said, this isn't the current policy and the Job Centre advisors in these cases were clearly in the wrong. It's shocking in itself that they either are not aware of the rules, or are deliberately trying to scare lone parents of babies back to work, hoping that they won't check the legislation themselves.

No, Charis, the bastards I was referring to are the Jobcentre staff who are required to hit sanctions targets and so set impossible tasks for jobseekers to undertake - the jobseekers being the ones scraping by on a pathetic dribble of free money. Have you signed on recently? It's bloody stressful and demoralising, and that's the point: to encourage people to find an alternative source of income because JSA is near impossible to survive and retain any dignity on.

And for those speculating on when single parents have to start jobsearching, I was told last time I was in that work focussed activity is required and sanctions permitted once the youngest child is three.

Tracey but that's the point - if you aren't actively seeking work or prepared to take in a job then you go over to income support. If you want to remain on your current benefit , even though finding a job is unlikely you have to go through the hoops they want you to.

I hate the phrase "lone parent". My kids have 2 parents (as do most) we just don't live together. If 2 adults have a child they should be supporting that child financially. If you are on jobseekers allowance then you should be looking for a job. If you aren't then you claim a different but lower benefit. We are an overpopulated island. If you decide to have kids you have to think about how you'll afford them not expect other people to support you their other parent and your kids.

I don't understand I thought line parents were not obliged to work until their youngest/only child was 5, so why are mums with little babies and 3 year olds being forced to take s job without childcare. That in itself is very serious safe guarding issue.

They're good at hounding the absent fathers aren't they. Erm not!!!!

Because someone didn't do their job properly at the Jobcentre.

Posted too quick.
I fear that with all the pressure lone parents are under.
Running a house. Caring for their child and being hounded by job centres to loo for phantom jobs. Regardless of whether they have adaquate childcare. Then I think the suicide rated amongst line parents could rise dramatically. There's only so much anyone can take.
I raised my dd as a lone parent and I went back to work. Thank goodness I did as well. I feel so sorry for these women who do fScs to me what is discrimination and contemp from the government.
Which in my opinion has gobs far enough now and needs to be addressed.

On the contrary, lone parents with preschool children usually have an easy time compared to many on benefits.

That's one of the dangers.

Not that many years ago I remember a woman from Gingerbread being interviewed on the news, ranting and raving the income support level was being brought down from the youngest child being sixteen.

Loads of women with partners have to go back to work when their baby is nine months, they don't have a choice.

When my 18 year old was a baby I had to be actively seeking work from when she was 6 weeks old in order to receive income support because my husband was a full time student. Getting paid maternity leave with the younger ones felt like a complete luxury!!!!

Our welfare state is a mess and unfortunately actually having further children as a low income couple or single parent makes short term financial sense/gain.

Just realised - what I didn't say is the lack of inaccurate spouting of the rules and regulations is not ok. Being threatened (wrongly) with sanctions is not ok.

Some of what goes on is utterly ridiculous whilst others who know how to work the system are making it so much harder on the most vulnerable

They're not forced to take jobs without childcare when their children are 3. Free childcare kicks in at 3 and they're supposed to use the time during that free childcare to undertake activities which will prepare them to return to work like training and volunteering.

And yes as other posters have said the system is unfair. If you have no partner the state makes the judgement that your child needs you at home and steps into the breach and supports you. This ignores the fact most families can't survive on one wage now so a lot of women with a partner are forced back into work when their children are very small.

I asked on the other thread why the children of single parents needed their mother at home more than children of those with a partner do. I got no response except a shrill cry of 'Who do you think is going to look after my children while I'm at work'. Well, who do you think looks after the children of women with a partner who have to go back to work? Childminders and nurseries. I don't understand why it's apparently fine for those children to be palmed off into childcare but not those of single parents.

The system has to change so that either all families with young children are offered help to stay home or none are. The current system which gives single parents a special privilege of the right to be at home with their children while it's denied to others is deeply unfair.

In fairness, when you are the sole parent, if you are at work 7am-6pm and your children go to bed at say 8pm, that means the children get very little input in the week from their parent. (of course the additional costs of pre and post-school hour care plus holidays means that most jobs don't pay for lps)

As a lone parent you are doing everything don't forget, so weekends are spent, washing tidying, cooking, shopping, cleaning etc etc ready for the next week - not doing stuff with your kids. You can't sit down and hear them read or help with homework or listen to them or give them attention while the other parent gets on with chores.

And there is the psychological dimension to being a lone parent.

It. is. relentless.

You don't really get this unless you've done it year in year out. It's not like when your dh goes away for a week. It's knowing that if your are sick you have to keep going. If you need to go to the dentist or drs, the kids come too. It's knowing that unless you do it, it doesn't get done. It's not having anyone to share your worries or solve a problem. That's hard and really adds to the general stress of life.

So, I think if a child has a single parent then it should be recognised that there is less parent to 'go round' for that child. It is in everyone's interest to support lp familes to ensure children still get a good upbringing and turn into good, productive adults.

Lone parents are fucking heroes in my opinion and deserve

Noef and VivienneMary - both of you are sadly misinformed. ESA is what used to be Incapacity Benefit.

if you aren't actively seeking work or prepared to take in a job then you go over to income support. If you want to remain on your current benefit , even though finding a job is unlikely you have to go through the hoops they want you to.
You do NOT have to be actively seeking work or prepared to take a job to be on ESA, in fact the whole point of it is supposed to be that you're too ill/disabled/incapacitated in some way to work.

I'm afraid I agreeTracey that you will have to go on a different benefit. I had a quick look at the gov. website. And there are two types of the benefit you are on one for people in work and one for people who don't work. I think if you're not working at the present time you can't get a benefit that is for supporting people in work.

I think you've misunderstood the info on the website. ESA is for people who do NOT work, and can't work. There is not a type of ESA that's for people who work. There is Contributions-based ESA, based on NI contributions made by working before you were ill/disabled/whatever, and there is the Work-related activity group, but neither of these involve the claimant being in actual work.

Tracey, good luck to you with the arsey advisor, I'm sorry I don't have any more to add to be of help to you tonight!

bunchoffives, I completely agree.

I disagree with the above point that lone parents have it easier because they can "choose not to work" while couples have to both go back to work by the time the baby's 9 months old. If a couple wants one partner to stay at home, and is willing to have the same standard of living that a lone parent would have on income support, then they are free to do that. A lot of people wouldn't accept that standard of living.

For couples who do decide to have a parent stay at home, there is a massive financial incentive in the form of the tax credits system. What I would like to know is, how is it fair to tell a lone parent that they have to work by the time their child is 5, but a low income couple can choose to have one parent stay at home until the children are grown up? The lone parent will have "work conditionality" and sanctions to face, while the SAHP in the couple will be left alone.

Thank you grumpykitty. I find it shocking that the jobcentre are making heavily pregnant/very ill people "jump through hoops" as some say. My last appointment i went to was for 3pm so i struggled to get there via public transport (thankfully no 2mile walk this time as made connecting bus) and got made to wait 40mins to be told ill phone you in a fortnight to see how you are why could she not of phoned me instead of me having to do a fair bit of trailing while in pain?

Aermingers single mothers receive approx £72 a week on income support. Mothers with working partners could stay at home and still be in a much better financial position.

income support amounts Weekly payment
Single16 to 24£57.90
Single25 or over£73.10
Lone parent16 to 17£57.90
Lone parent18 or over£73.10
CouplesBoth under 18£57.90
CouplesBoth under 18 - ‘higher rate’£87.50
CouplesOne under 18, the other 18 to 24£57.90
CouplesOne under 18, the other 25 or over£73.10
CouplesOne under 18, one over - ‘higher rate’£114.85
CouplesBoth 18 or over£114.85Higher rate

I'm a lone parent, my son is 2. I was made redundant the day I was supposed to return from mat leave. I've been trying to get on top.of PND and related.MH illnesses ever since.

I was at the job centre last week.

I claim.Income Support.

I volunteer occasionally (few times a month)

My advisor was very helpful. She told me that until the age of 3 I do not have to actively seek work. After that they want to see some form of training, voluntary work or at least effort to get back into the workplace by the time the younger child is 5.

The Universal Credit which is being rolled out will require more frequent contact with the JC, in order to increase hours. Should I be working 16 hours and a job offering 24 hours comes up, I must either take it or prove (following a pre-approved checklist) why I can't. If I can't take more hours due to childcare for e.g., that would fulfil the criteria for me not taking the job with more hours.

JC lady said that a large amount of staff there are part time, receive tax.credits and will be having to follow the same rules - having interviews with their colleagues and justifying why they won't be taking more hours.

I just can't see how it's going to work on a large scale. So much input is needed from the JC, it will be a mess!

No, people with a working partner are often not better off than that and many would be worse off if the woman didn't work. And those figures make the presumption that if a woman has an able bodied partner they would both be able to choose not to work, which is not the case. Plus the 'higher rate' is in fact lower because it gives less money per adult.

Anyway, if only one adult was working when you factor in rent and council tax the 'free money' after bills that a single parents are entitled to many families would have a negative figure rather than £75.00 if both parents don't return to work.

I'm not sure what difference sickness makes. If I'm ill my husband doesn't take a day off to look after my child. I have to carry on too. And if it's a day when I should be working and they go to the childminder instead, single mothers would do the same if they worked.

People don't work standard 9-5 these days. There are plenty of parents in two parent families where one parent does almost all of the childcare. Unless you count work as a break there are plenty of families who work shifts where they are almost always parenting alone. My husband leaves home at 5 in the morning and doesn't get home until 7 Monday to Saturday. I parent alone apart from Sundays when I normally have housework to do which I can't get done when I'm working. Having a partner who is sometimes at home doesn't mean you're suddenly lying around having grapes peeled into your mouth. Anyway, financially supporting single mothers to stay at home doesn't give them a break or make parenting any less relentless.

The fact I get to do some cleaning on a Sunday doesn't mean my children need me at home any less than anybody else's child does. I know plenty of single parents who have many more breaks than I do. It's not for the state to legislate to give parents 'a break' anyway, purely on the basis that all women with partners supposedly get breaks when all without supposedly don't.