Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

220 replies

MrsNextDoor · 15/05/2015 14:02

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. Angry AIBU to think this should be stopped immediately!?

OP posts:
bunchoffives · 16/05/2015 12:06

I know that being a single parent can be wonderful. You can take real pride in doing it yourself, providing for yourself and your children, doing a good job.

But when the pressure is really on and there is no one else around to support you or your children, then it can be very hard.

It also obviously depends on how many children you have.

I respectfully suggest lone parenting one child is very different to three.

And aermingers you rather make my point - you are 'lone parenting' while your husband works all the hours God sends. But if you were a lone parent you would be the one working those hours without another parent to step in.

VanillaTwirl · 16/05/2015 12:07

Soontobesix - judging by that shitty comment, you have nothing to be proud of.

almosthuman · 16/05/2015 12:13

VanillaTwirl I had my DD in 2002 and had exactly the same amount of maternity leave. I returned to work when My DD was 14 weeks old which I found difficult especially as a single parent. I would have loved to of spent more time with my DD but needed to earn money. I made the right choice for my family returning to work.

I was simply asking Lotus why she went back as returning to work with a 14 week old was hard enough.

bunchoffives · 16/05/2015 12:14

I do take the point that going back to work when your baby is two weeks old may not be great for the baby's or your own health.

SoonToBeSix · 16/05/2015 12:18

Two week old babies don't want a work ethic modelled to them, they want/ need their mother.

VanillaTwirl · 16/05/2015 12:25

Sorry almosthuman, I misunderstood Smile.

Soontobesix, a 2 week old baby doesn't want/need 'its mother' - it needs someone to give it love and attention and cater for its needs - not just its mother.

almosthuman · 16/05/2015 12:28

VanillaTwirl not a problem

almosthuman · 16/05/2015 12:28

VanillaTwirl not a problem

Stinkersmum · 16/05/2015 12:28

SoonToBeSix all in your incredibly judgemental, ignorant and insulting opinion, of course. An ex colleague of mine went back to work after two weeks - she had to. Unless she moved house, sold a kidney and one of her other children, she simply could not afford to drop down to whatever the state was handing out at the time. That child is now a fabulous, well rounded, happy young lady.

ilovesooty · 16/05/2015 12:35

If someone has to return to work quickly after their baby is born I think it's pretty shitty to sit on judgement on them and try to make them feel guilty about it.

bunchoffives · 16/05/2015 12:36

Surely though Stinker women should be accorded the 'right' to recover from birth?

And babies the 'right' to receive care from its mother?

We are the sixth richest nation in the world with a dropping birth rate. I think society could well afford to support the production of its next generation (which it depends on for its continuance) and to a high standard

Afterall those mothers and eventually babies will soon be working and paying in their taxes. What is the point of paying tax if you cannot receive support when you need it? god knows i'm paying enough tax back now to pay for a few maternity leaves

CadieAgain · 16/05/2015 12:37

Depends what you mean by going back to work. Lotus is always trotting out the two week thing but over the years has also said she is self-employed, works from home so chooses her hours and had the nanny bring in the DC for breastfeeding / bonding etc

I do admire her for the choices and abilities which led to it, and her obvious work-ethic, but not everyone has that set up. Very few people do.

Stinkersmum · 16/05/2015 12:39

She had recovered from the birth. Not every mother has a hard, bloody, 18 stitches time you know. Are you suggesting the state pay her mortgage for a choice she made? lol!!!!!!!!!

GratefulHead · 16/05/2015 12:41

Leaving aside the whole issue of when a woman goes back to work which is/should be up to the woman and how she recovers from birth. The whole benefits sanctions stuff needs regulation, they are being applied far too ad hoc and in the out ridiculous of situations.

I have an appointment to speak to my local Tory MP about this and to remind him that he represents ALL his constituents and not just the ones who voted for him. I volunteer with young families and have seen some plunged into financial hardship due to unfairly applied sanctions..,..one family because the Dad had missed an appointment with the jobcentre.....he was in hospital after a huge stroke and they were informed of this. Sanctioned...and that's ridiculous.

fiveacres · 16/05/2015 12:55

It is not as simple to cry out that as the sixth richest nation in the world we can afford to support the 'production of the next generation.'

Put simply, we are not animals. It is not the role of society to produce the next generation - it's the role of families. That is the basic stance I take.

Of course, in some instances that isn't possible. Do I think women should be hurled out 2 weeks after giving birth? No. Do I think asking single women to prepare themselves to go back to work thirty six months after giving birth? Yes, I think that's reasonable ...

SoonToBeSix · 16/05/2015 13:00

Stinker I am not saying the baby would be affected in the long term. I am saying at that moment in time a very young child needs their mother.

SoonToBeSix · 16/05/2015 13:00

Very young baby not child.

Stinkersmum · 16/05/2015 13:06

No, it needs to be fed, clothed, kept clean and warm. Stop being so bloody indulgent.

fiveacres · 16/05/2015 13:08

He or she doesn't need their mother; they would survive without her.

However, I do feel that assuming the mother is available and willing to care for the child, babies should be with her at that age.

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 16/05/2015 13:10

Welcome to Week Two of the new round of arseholiness. Only five more years to go...

so who voted for the Tories then????????????

Hmm - article from 2014.

RTFT dears - this happened under the coalition....

(but why let facts get in the way of a good rant)

LotusLight · 16/05/2015 13:12

It is so sexist how people get at women like I am who go back to work very quickly! You never see that applied to men. Why shouldn't we go back to work if it's best for baby, families and women? I breastfed every few hours all night and expressed milk and work (most women on benefits in the UK by the way don't breastfeed to 21 months like many of we working women do as we have the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe in the UK and we give up soonest).

Why does it need a mother? It had a lovely daily nanny who came each day and loved it. It had its father and mother there before and after work and in the night (none of our babies slept). With the youngest 2 twins it also had 3 older brothers and sisters around and one reason my children have done well is I earn enough to pay 5 sets of school fees not something most women who give up work or live off state benefits or take loads of maternity leave ever achieve so generally children of mothers who go back to work very quickly tend to do a lot better than mothers at home.If changes to the benefits system makes women get back to fill time work when they have a 2 or 6 weeks old baby that could be a huge benefit to those women and their children - win win all round.

fiveacres · 16/05/2015 13:15

I think if you are happy with those choices that is fine. I am all for personal choice and autonomy over our lives - hence why I voted conservative :)

I wouldn't like maternity pay to be restricted so that women felt this was a choice they had to make; I certainly wouldn't want to see a woman being encouraged into work so early even if she was on benefits.

I do feel when the child is a certain age, the main carer needs to be steered away from benefits and into work.

Stinkersmum · 16/05/2015 13:20

'I wouldn't like maternity pay to be restricted so that women felt this was a choice they had to make'

They have a choice - to not get pregnant if they can't afford to stay home without depending on handouts.

CadieAgain · 16/05/2015 13:20

I think it's great that you were able to return to work when you wanted to, Lotus, and that you picked rewarding work you enjoy, are good at, and which pays extremely well. But you had a supportive husband, affordable childcare and were not a lone parent until your children were older.

Someone completely alone and living on less than £100 per week with no savings would find it much more challenging.

fiveacres · 16/05/2015 13:25

And I am all for encouraging sensible choices, but there is a difference between choices that are sensible and balanced and choices that are overtly draconian and harsh. A 2 week period after giving birth falls into the latter category for me.

Swipe left for the next trending thread