To think my husband is wrong for reporting my sister for benefit fraud?

[Rockyhardplace25]

So back story:

My sister is a lot younger than me. There is a 15 year age gap- so I basically raised her as my mother was struggling with an alcohol addiction and wasn’t fit to until she went into rehab when my sister was 9. We have a very, strong close relationship.
Sister has also had her own issues with drugs- but when she found out she was pregnant with my niece 8 years ago, went to rehab and has sorted her life out. To some extent.
She has a much older partner, the gap is nearly 30 years, who she met in her addiction who has also, again to some extent, sorted his life out. In that aspect- I take my hat off to both of them.
This man was married with adult children and got my sister pregnant after a one night stand. He left his wife and moved in with my sister. His “other family” have completely cut him off apart from his eldest child- who, from what I can work out, uses him as a bank.

Me and DH have one child, DD who is now a 11, Children are expensive- there’s no two ways about it. With clothing, school trips, days out etc it does add up. DSIS has a 7 year old and is now pregnant with a second child who we are all very excited about.

DSIS doesn’t work and claims sickness benefits, her partner does. Up until recently we assumed she was reporting his income as part of her claim- but we have found out through a slip of the tounge she isn’t. She isn’t even declaring he lives with her, which he does full time. His bank account, car and other things that could link him back to DSIS house is registered to his son’s address. A son he gives £1500 a month too.

DSIS was brought a house when she turned 18 (we have same mum, different dads) so solely pays the mortgage and a lump of the bills herself topped up by her partner. If he/the kids need anything he will go out and buy it but doesn’t directly contribute to the monthly running of the home. Which has pissed me off if I’m honest.

DH is even more pissed off- feels she is taking the piss, as is he, she is committing fraud and why is it fair we both work our arses off to pay our monthly bills when she’s getting it handed to her on a plate but wouldn’t if she was honest. DH thinks if she does that then her partner will leave her because at the moment he’s pretty much living the life of Riley with no expenses.

Hes admitted to me over the weekend he’s reported her for benefit fraud. I don’t know how I feel- I keep flitting from one thing to the next- but ultimately she is my sister and I am worried she will get into serious shit.

Honestly I hear you. My issue with the above poster is they make it sound like a person with no legs is unable to work or parent and I was just pointing out this most definitely isn't always the case.

And again the assumption is that the disabled parent is either a single mum or their partner is also disabled.

As if supermarket jobs make up the bulk of jobs.😂Regardless, of what you can think of there are plenty of jobs which don't involve stacking shelves.

Yep, sorry, I should have acknowledged that. Agree.

What jobs can you think of for someone who has no legs, is a full time wheelchair user and needs help on and off the toilet ? Occasionally needs help with changing a catheter bag or changing themselves after an accident. Who’s going to do that while they’re at work ? For those people who need to be in a wheelchair full time it’s not just a case of the loss of limbs or whatever other condition has put them in that position, it’s the impact of the overall condition - not what you can see, and in many cases, judge.

Actually it’s not acceptable to say either. It’s stereotyping.

You could do those things with my job because I work at home. The internet has been a great thing in that respect. I wouldn't have a baby if I needed help to get on and off the toilet, change etc etc though. It's not fair on the child.

If someone cannot or will not work, I don’t really care if it’s because they have no legs, some other condition, prefer to lie around smoking weed all day long or have little green men in their refrigerator telling them they shouldn’t work!

The reason is beside the point!

No one who needs publicly funded dole to survive should be producing additional human beings for fellow citizens to also support. Full stop. End of.

I don’t care if they are a grifting twat or the most wonderful valiant person on earth. The bottom line is that they can’t support themselves and they cannot support offspring.

They need to focus on being as independent as possible, not make choices that require taking more and more and more ad infinitum from the rest of us.

We can’t get everything we ‘want’ in life. No one is owed children at everyone else’s expense.

We can’t get everything we ‘want’ in life. No one is owed children at everyone else’s expense.

Do you have the same expectation of those who expect the NHS to address their childlessness ? NHS IVF treatment is publicly funded. Three rounds cost in excess of £15,000. Do we tell those people it’s just tough, we can’t all have what we want if we can’t afford it ?

I agree with you to some extent. But what l take issue with here is the pigeonholing of disabled people into one homogenous group. And until we address the issue of able bodied people churning out children they expect the tax payer to fund, we really shouldn’t be singling out disabled people. The assumption here is that disabled people can’t possibly support children if they can’t work because either they will be a single parent or neither partner can work because of disability. That is what is ableist.

No one on the dole, able or not, should be producing offspring. Full stop.

I do not believe IVF should be publicly funded whatsoever. There is no shortage of human beings on this poor burning planet. People who feel that strongly about being parents should finance it themselves.

I agree that IVF should not be publicly funded. It's something nice but unnecessary. The NHS should be about what is necessary.

Give me her details, I'll fucking report her too.

Agree. The problem I have is that money is being spent all over the place on things that are, as you say, nice to have, but as a result funding for treatments for actual illnesses, including cancer, is being limited.

Agree. The assumption at the start of this discussion was disability itself should preclude people from being parents. A viewpoint I don’t agree with. I know from the point of view of being disabled myself that a full time job and being a parent was something I would never have coped with. I needed and wanted to work, so the choice was easy for me. Having worked with the disabled as an outreach worker for most of my career my perspective is slightly biased because I know from experience that some of the assertions made by some during the course of this discussion are simply not true.

I’ve met parents who have exactly those needs, and they have carers. It hasn’t impacted on the welfare of the child at all. Working from home isn’t the same because those same problems would present a significant challenge in a traditional workplace.

The government has proposed working from home as a solution for disabled people - which I think would work well for some. The problem is getting employers on board. A quick check on various threads on MN indicates that most employers are now concentrated on getting people back into the workplace for at least a proportion of the working week.

How do you know that it has had no impact on the child? I don't think it is ideal at all for a child to have a parent who can't independently look after themselves and would never had had children if that was the case for me.

I agree that it can be hard to get a job if disabled because employers are not always willing to put in reasonable adjustments but that doesn't mean the disabled person is too ill or disabled to work. It means employers need to change their attitude.

I certainly don't think disability should preclude people being parents. I worked with a man who had both feet amputated mid-calf due to diabetes and he was an absolutely fantastic father. He also worked, in an office and had to go out into the field regularly, and never complained. He also had to do a sort of self-dialysis every day due to kidney failure. Again, never complained.

Also have known/been acquainted with people who are blind, have rheumatoid arthritis, mental health disorders, etc. and are great parents. The thing is - they all worked for a living and supported their families.

My point is that NO ONE, regardless of health status, is entitled to become a parent just because they want to. Supporting one's family economically though earning, or being partnered with an earning spouse, is rock-bottom basic prerequisite. Expecting taxpayers to support not only oneself but however many offspring one chooses to (or carelessly "falls pregnant" with) is massively taking the piss.

Wouldn’t disagree with any of this.

Yet on another thread, you said a lady whose husband had left her after 7 years of marriage was irresponsible for having kids with him, and she should should have picked better.

Because the nature of my work meant I got to know the circumstances and families of the people I worked with. One particular parent was severely disabled and in a wheelchair. Worked part time and had a son who she supported 100% including through uni and he’s now on his way to becoming a doctor. The notion that a parent having a disability always has a detrimental effect on the child is ableist nonsense.

To be clear, if you are not able to financially support yourself and are relying on benefits, then becoming a parent whether able bodied or disabled is irresponsible. But disability on its’ own is absolutely not a reason to preclude anyone from becoming a parent. There are relatively few people who are so profoundly disabled that they need help with every aspect of daily care and mobility. And in those cases parenting is potentially not a viable option anyway.

You cannot take away a disabled persons’ right to choose what they want in any aspect of their lives simply because they are disabled.

Employers are very reluctant to take on disabled people. Even for those with the mildest of disability it’s an uphill struggle to get employers to even give them a trial period. Disability is a protected characteristic and the perception is that once taken on they will be difficult to let go if there are problems. And despite what you hear about accommodations and reasonable adjustment being available, getting DWP to fork out for those adjustments is very difficult because like everything else these days, funding is limited. The government isn’t making things any better with the negative rhetoric around disabled people and work - conflating out of work benefits with in work cost based benefits like PIP doesn’t help.

If we’re to change the attitude of employers then there needs to be a lot more positive rhetoric from government and a willingness to recognise that at the moment they’re putting the cart before the horse. Introducing sanctions and limiting benefits for the disabled, as is happening now, should only happen once the work has been done to ensure there is work available for disabled people and employers are on board. And at the moment that isn’t happening - the majority of the work is still to be done.

I haven't said disability is on it's own a reason not to be a parent though. I am disabled myself and also a parent. It's not "ableist nonsense " to state that if you rely on the taxpayer to look after yourself then you are not going to be an ideal parent. It applies to everyone. The fact that you know a disabled person whose child is training to ge a doctor does not negate that.

Exactly. No one here has EVER said that disabled people are disqualified from being parents.

Any person, disabled or not, who is not working and supported by the state is not fit to produce offspring. They need to work on becoming independent themselves or manage as they are. Just because they "want" to be parents doesn't make it acceptable. We all want things we can't have due to our specific life circumstances. Deliberately producing offspring, as the OP's sister is doing, in a dependent situation is immoral, antisocial and irresponsible.

That is in your head though. People on benefits can and do have kids, and there is nothing to stop them doing so.

This is what you said How do you know that it has had no impact on the child? I don't think it is ideal at all for a child to have a parent who can't independently look after themselves and would never had had children if that was the case for me.. There was no mention of benefits. And my reply still stands. It’s ableist nonsense to suggest that disabled people can’t be parents simply because they’re disabled.

OP said her sister was claiming sickness benefits. The discussion has moved on from there.