To think the current benefits system sets single parents up to commit fraud?

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I am a single parent, I'm currently a student and earn a small amount from self employment, so receive some housing benefit, CTC, WTC and CB.

Let's say, hypothetically, my bf moved in with me (there is no real danger of that happening for a very long time, but let's pretend). He earns £50k a year. If he moved in, as far as the system would see it, my children are his children, and therefore he would be jointly financially responsible for them. I would instantly lose all of my benefits, leaving me around £1100 a month worse off. This would leave me in a position of being no longer financially independent, and feeling like I had to go to him, cap in hand, to ask for money. Money, which often would be spent buying things for my kids.

My bf is a very nice chap and all that, but I doubt he'd cough up a grand a month to provide for me and my children. I doubt there's many blokes that would. His dd would also lose out, as through suddenly having gained two extra children, the maintenance she is entitled to would go right down.

Bearing all this in mind, I can see why many single parents are tempted to move their partner in 'on the sly'. Of course this is very risky, but only for the single parent (usually the female). As the benefits claimant it is the single parent who will be prosecuted, the partner they'd moved in would have no repercussions, even though no doubt they'd done quite well in terms of their own living costs, probably chipping in a token amount towards food and bills.

I think this makes it very hard for single parents to ever have a serous relationship, unless they happened to be a high earner themselves, so benefits weren't an issue. Or I suppose if both adults were on benefits, as they wouldn't lose out there. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than a citizens wage (which will never happen).

I'd rather my children avoid the pitfalls of early parenthood
How do you know when they will become parents?
90% of the population does.

I dont see my dd as a pitfall, she is a very astute young lady with 11 GCSEs and currently taking A1s.
Great. Will you be encouraging her to have children at 18?

alfie
As you should. That's what they're for.

because pointing out that certain paths carry higher risk is inevitably interpreted as a moral judgement rather than a statement of fact.

it is moral judgement when you are unable to back up your 'statements of fact' with any kind of credible research or statistics. And you can't because it doesn't exist. Just because the Daily Mail says all single mothers had their first child at 16 and went on to have 5 more with 5 different fathers doesn't make it so.

Apple your comment says a lot about you not me.

it is moral judgement when you are unable to back up your 'statements of fact' with any kind of credible research or statistics. And you can't because it doesn't exist. Just because the Daily Mail says all single mothers had their first child at 16 and went on to have 5 more with 5 different fathers doesn't make it so.

Do you REALLY need to see statistical evidence that having many children in your teens/early twenties in an unstable relationship puts you at a higher risk for poverty? Which of my statements do you disagree with, specifically?

Apple your comment says a lot about you not me.

Which comment is that? Honestly, would you encourage your daughter to have children at 18?

Apple this is a thread about single parenthood not teenage parenthood.

Do you REALLY need to see statistical evidence that having many children in your teens/early twenties in an unstable relationship puts you at a higher risk for poverty?

The variables are endless. I am asking for statistical and/or empirical evidence that shows what you are stating to be the truth. I would suggest it isn't the truth, just a truth that the Daily Mail et al make up to condemn single parents to a life of having to explain themselves and having people tell them, gleefully, just how they deserve everything they get.

Honestly, would you encourage your daughter to have children at 18?

As someone who came to parenthood later in life, I think there is something in parenting at a younger age, yes. Pros and cons to everything. There's stuff I can do at 45 that I couldn't have at 18. And vice versa. Either way, at 38, I ended up a single mum...might as well have fulfilled your stereotype as you have judged me anyway!

We all know that if you work very hard at school get good exam results go to a good university, pick a good career and then and only then have babies you are highly likely to help your child best and improve your life chances. It is not tocket science and it's why just about everyone on this thread will be encouraging those of their chidlren who have a chance of this to do their homework not mess around and to go to university and pick a sensible career. We can all try to influence what happens in life. That does not mean some of us won't have bad luck but we do have some input in most cases into how things turn out.

I didn't have children until after not just university but law school. Why was that? Surprise surprise - because I was a virgin and yes that is technically possible unless people are raped of course.

I agree that the ideal is to wait until you have a career and stable relationship before you have kids, but the thing is, young people WILL have sex and no form of contraception is 100% reliable, so accidents do happen. I certainly didn't mean to get pregnant at 22, whilst in a relationship I knew wouldn't last (we had been together a year). Her father was all up for me having an abortion, which probably would have been the 'sensible' thing to do.

But now I have an almost 12 year old, who is bright, funny and kind and despite things since her birth being very rocky, she is in the top sets at one of the top schools in the country. She is very switched on for her age, and a bit of a deep thinker, and the other day she thanked me for not getting an abortion when I was pregnant with her, it was totally random and out of the blue, but she'd obviously been thinking about what it must have been like getting pregnant at 22. So yes, in an ideal world that pregnancy would never have happened, but it did, and whilst I'm aware that being from a single parent family generally decreases life chances, there is no sign of that being the case with my daughter. It's not how I would have planned it, I'd far rather have spent my twenties having a good time like my friends, but an accident happened, and I felt like I had to step up and take responsibility for it. We are very lucky to live in a society where there IS support for single parents (though with the introduction of universal credit I think that's going to come to an abrupt end).

Just thought that it was funny that today's ads on this page are for Ella One - emergency contraception.

Oh, my ads are for a posh private school...they're pissing in the wind there

You could have just not had sex though, as I didn't. Then the issue of whether contraception works or not would not have arisen. In other words we all have a big impact on how our lives play out.

well yes I suppose, but whilst I'm not judging you for not having sex, that's not realistically going to happen in the majority of cases in this day and age.

I tried to do everything right. Degree, postgraduate, career, long term relationship, no debts, own house.

I now desperately wish I hadn't because TTC at 38 hasn't been fun. I have been pregnant once but miscarried and we don't know if this is indicative of a problem or if we're going to end up hitting our forties and too old for IVF to realistically work before we find out. I kinda wish we'd taken a leap and started trying earlier.

The sensible thing economically for women isn't necessarily the best idea biologically.

Tabiscle it seems whatever path we choose there are obstacles. I have a teenager a house a car a job but no partner. I wish you luck ttc

Thank you! I still have hope but if I had my time again I'd totally do things differently and sod sensible!

There are massive economic disincentives for many working class underemployed people from moving their partners in, this includes single parents. That doesnt mean they commit fraud, but it does mean they dont get to lead a normal family life in the traditional sense, and probably doesnt help the housing shortage if familys are all split up for economic reasons

I wanted lots of children so married at nearly 22 and had our first baby when I was almost 23 but carried on working full time with not really anything much by way of maternity leave. That did work well because I was in my 20s (but had finished full time education for a fairly well paid profession) so not trying to have babies when I was nearly 40.

So my advice to people's children is get your qualifications and don't have loads of risky sex (or indeed any sex - yes PIV sex is not essential t life - you can masturbate or whatever) if you don't want babies before you can afford them. Then marry ideally someone you met at or or shortly after university as you meet so many potential spouses there and it gets harder to meet people once work becomes busier. Then have your babies but don't take much time off and always work full time so the family has two incomes to protect it against things going wrong.

thanks. I'll get a time machine sorted pronto

user1463231665 - That lifestyle worked for you. Who knows what impact having two full time working parents has/had on your children. We are all different and our children are all different. Please do not assume that your lifestyle is right for anybody but yourself.

I wanted lots of children so married at nearly 22 and had our first baby when I was almost 23 but carried on working full time with not really anything much by way of maternity leave. That did work well because I was in my 20s (but had finished full time education for a fairly well paid profession) so not trying to have babies when I was nearly 40.

You are famously (on MN) in an extremely well paid profession (city law) and equally famously had to pay your exh a million pound plus divorce settlement.

We can't ^have a society where every woman is that well paid. You do see that don't you? Very high salaries buy a very wide range of choices.

Fucking hell, if we were all city lawyers society would soon grind to a fucking halt. There would be no-one doing anything that was remotely useful, for starters.

Those of us on the thread arguing that women (and our children ) can improve their odds of not ending up on benefits as single parents give good advice. There are few in the country would disagree that women having a good education, picking well paid work and putting off babies until they can afford them and are in a stable marriage is a wise idea. It is what most parents want for their daughters. it's why on education threads parents are not saying - I stop her revising as I hope instead she'd be out having sex with a boyfriend. Instead they are encouraging children to better themselves - wise parents. If it's too late for mothers on the thread they can at least makes changes for the next generation and encourage their daughters to be well educated.

Clearly we can't all pick well-paid work, otherwise it wouldn't be classed as 'well-paid', given that the term is relative - in this case, relative to low-paid work. So your solution is something that is only ever going to work for a very few. What about the rest, Xenia - you know, the majority of women. The ones who won't be well-paid because by definition most women will not. Do you have an answer to that conundrum ? Because by telling women to do something that blatantly most of them will not be able to do - and apart from anything else as I said society would soon start to suffer if the entire population became lawyers earning £100k+ a year because fuck all would get done - you are not adding telling us anything that will benefit any but a vanishingly small number. It's poppycock nonsense.