15 free hours (punished for not having a partner?)

[glossypeach]

Title is a bit weird but let me continue. I’m disabled and unable to work at the moment, I’m also a single parent to a three year old. He is eligible for the 15 hours free childcare because I’m currently not working. But if my circumstances changed and I got a partner who worked, I would be eligible for him to have the 30 hours free childcare. But the only thing that would change would be having a partner. I’d still be disabled, id still be unable to work but because I’d have a partner my child would be allowed to have that extra time in nursery. It feels like I’m being punished for choosing to remain single, and a bit discriminating that I’m unable to work at the moment but because I cannot do that, my child is missing out. My child is very active and although I have a good support network to help him get out when my disability disabled me to, he thrives at nursery - so I cannot see how single disabled people don’t get that 30 free hour funding also??

For 3/4 yo 15hrs is plenty to allow them to socialise, learn and become school ready. They don't need more hours for themselves.
Oh give over. It's an arbitrary figure that was costed out. You don't know if OP's child is struggling at home with being shut inside and few toys, or has any development issues, or anything else. So you have no idea for this particular child whether 15 hours is enough or not. OP doesn't think it is, she doesn't want the time for appointments nor rest but for her child's development.

I'm ashamed of the lot of you today for trying to encourage someone to just suck it up, instead of pushing for the best for their child, what a disgrace.

She didn’t open her thread with “I’m struggling” she was merely comparing her entitlement to funded hours with working parents and complaining.

That’s very different. She’s using someone else’s entitlement as a benchmark to her own.

The entitlement is for working parents, you're not working... No one if punishing you.

This is pure lies. She didn't use your hoice of words, but this was in the OP:
I’m unable to work at the moment but because I cannot do that, my child is missing out. My child is very active and although I have a good support network to help him get out when my disability disabled me to, he thrives at nursery
It is ALL about her child and her child's needs.

OP has also failed to mention she will have qualified for 15 hours from when her child was 2 whereas working parents don’t qualify until their children are 3. So arguably she’s had the same entitlement just stretched over a longer period.

It’s not - it’s a comparison between working and non working parents.

It’s brilliant that you are putting the needs of your child first, but I can see why the system has to be strict to encourage people to work (not that people able to work should need encouragement to do so). So as others have said, I guess there will always be those that fall in between.

How do you spread the hours out through the week? Could you do every morning (possibly topped up with paying extra for lunchtime) so its abit longer and pick up after lunch? That was on offer at our nursery. Then your child would have a morning full of activities, see friends every day and can have more chilled out afternoons with you.

Because the country doesn’t have unlimited funds?

If you’re determined to be very black and white and not bother to see what the Op was saying…

your determination to see the worst in the OP says far more about you, than her frustration at the idiosyncrasies of the system does about her.

It’s also a comparison between the help given to a disabled person with a working partner and a disabled person without.

Redtulip is phrasing things bluntly and probably not how I would, but the essence of her posts is absolutely correct.

I have never seen a single poster say there want there to be no benefit system, that the disabled or jobless should be left to sleep on the streets. But surely there is a limit to what we can do to help them, and what OP receives already is an acceptable (or even generous) level of support - free housing, expenses, medical care, 15 hours of childcare. Don’t forget about all the ‘hidden’ costs of society as well, such as the police and fire service - these are all available to the OP as well. This is all paid for by the hard work of others, who don’t begrudge it, but equally don’t think people should be entitled to the moon on a stick at their expense either.

And like I said there never seems to be any acknowledgement of what claimants do get, it’s always about what they don’t - the expectations just go up and up, and the level of entitlement just increases.

Like I said if OP did get 30 free hours, the next thread would be ‘why don’t I get transport to nursery free?’ Or similar. And posters like yourself would be in agreement, once again failing to acknowledge it all costs money (other people’s money) and there needs to be a limit on what we can provide.

I’m not “determined to see the worst” I’m just pointing out that OP is already in receipt of significant support and separating out this one, fairly small, element and using it as a basis to feel hard done by isn’t reflective of the actual situation.

Like I said if OP did get 30 free hours, the next thread would be ‘why don’t I get transport to nursery free?’ Or similar. And posters like yourself would be in agreement, once again failing to acknowledge it all costs money (other people’s money) and there needs to be a limit on what we can provide.

Absolute speculation on your part.

If that’s the fable you wish to tell yourself to make yourself feel better about your nastiness toward the OP then you go for it.

The Op has simply compared the support given to a child of one disabled parent - her - with the support given to the child of a disabled parent who also has a partner.

that’s all. A direct comparison in which the child of another disabled parent is given double the time in nursery.

tying in knots pretending the Op has done anything other than that or is asking for the moon on a string is speculation just to give the chance to attack. Pure and simple

@RedTulipsSpring I agree with all your posts.

And certain peoples inability to disagree with the Op without resorting to playground levels of nastiness most definitely says far more about them than it does the OP.

As I said upthread OP’s entitlement to 15 hours began a year earlier because she’s not working. So if we’re comparing like for like she’s had the same as if she did have a working partner and so this whole thread is based on a false assumption.

I don't know if I'm missing something, but can't you just pay for extra hours? We currently pay all out 2 year old's hours and the rest for our older child, as he does a little over 30 hours per week...

But it’s not ‘support for disabled people’, for the last time. It’s support for working people. Like saying people without children should get child benefit because they’re skint - that isn’t it’s purpose so it’s a moot debate.

No you are confused.

@RedTulipsSpring

Blunt but absolutely correct.

Am I reading this right? If OP is entitled the scheme a year prior to others then in total she will have had the same amount of free childcare allowance by the time school starts anyway? Just spread out over a longer period.

Yes it would make her partner eligible.

Yes - lower income households receive 15 funded hours from 2 years old. Working households 30 hours from 3, non working continue to get 15.

OP, ignore those who need to check their privilege. That vitriol doesn't matter. It's obvious you're thinking about your child's needs, and those needs include you taking care of yourself so your child gets the best of you.

Speak to the CAB for clarification and definitely get in touch with social services disabled parents' team. There is some funding available for nursery or preschool places.

@RedTulipsSpring

Awesome, thanks.

I must look into it thoroughly when I get the chance.

Well said - " I have never seen a single poster say there want there to be no benefit system, that the disabled or jobless should be left to sleep on the streets. But surely there is a limit to what we can do to help them, and what OP receives already is an acceptable (or even generous) level of support - free housing, expenses, medical care, 15 hours of childcare. Don’t forget about all the ‘hidden’ costs of society as well, such as the police and fire service - these are all available to the OP as well. This is all paid for by the hard work of others, who don’t begrudge it, but equally don’t think people should be entitled to the moon on a stick at their expense either."