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.

And lot are harder. What is your point?

My point us that someone who genuinely can't do a paid work will also not be able to look after a baby themselves. That's okay if the father is able to look after the baby and the parents support themselves financially but not if they are expecting the tax payer to provide support via social services or benefits.

But they can, if they have the support.

We seem to be going are in circles. If you mean support provided for by the tax pay see above for my opinion.

What do you mean by tax payer? Social services?

Disabled people who can not work can and do raise children. If you don't think they should be able to, then have a deep and hard look at yourself.

Spiteful comment and not needed at all. I know people in my position who did have kids, and are amazing at it.
I hope you don't break a bone when you fall off you moral high horse.

It was a spiteful comment or at least came across as such (perhaps the poster didn't mean to be so snarky). And you know my experience says the opposite. It's the people who think they'll be shit parents or who doubt their own abilities who turn out to be the great ones.

(And plenty of people don't like anyone's kids but their own, though it seems to be taboo to mention it.)

This is nasty, spiteful and totally unwarranted. You should be ashamed. You’ve skirted around outright ableism throughout the thread, but now we see you for what you really are.

I wasn't being spiteful and i certainly don't think it ablist to suggest that if someone knows they will only be able to raise a child with support from social services, MH teams and wider family they should consider not having children in the first place. I don't think it fair on the child.

Well clearly MN doesn’t agree with you because it’s been deleted. And you’ve changed your tune. A couple of pages ago you were arguing that you had no problem with disabled people having kids unless they were on benefits. Now the ‘taxpayer funding’ in your world extends to social services, MH services and even the persons’ own family.

I have over twenty years professional experience of supporting disabled people and IME part of the remit of social services and other agencies is to provide social support to disabled people with children, in order to ensure their needs are met and to ensure the welfare of both parents and child. Because the last time l looked we were an inclusive compassionate society not a bunch of ableist twats trying to impose our own ideas of what disabled people can and can’t do, for no other reason than it makes us feel morally superior.

Maybe MN deemed it to be a personal attack. They don't seem to have a problem with a general comment that if someone can only bring up a child with the support of social services, mental health teams they should consider not having children at all. That is regardless of whether someone is disabled or not.

Yes, I am not just talking about benefits when I say tax payer support. I am also talking about social services support too as that is also funded by tax payers. Regardless of the financial cost to taxpayers I don't think it's great to have a child if you know you can only do it with social service and mental health support anyway. It not fair on the child. Again, that is regardless of whether someone is disabled or not..

And stop calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an ableist twat. I am disabled myself and unlike you I have children.

I didn’t call you an ableist twat. It was a general comment about society. If you recognised yourself in my words that’s not my problem. I’m not engaging with this any more, it’s pointless because you keep changing your opinion depending on which aspect of your ableism you’re being called out on. And FYI being disabled yourself doesn't mean you can’t be ableist.

It is nothing to do with recognising myself. I thought you were calling me an ableist because you have done so several times on this thread ffs.

Of course your sister shouldn't be committing benefit fraud but gosh she's your sister. He should have tried to talk some sense into her or avoided her. Yes, what she is doing is wrong but it's not like she is an immediate danger to anyone. I don't think I could forgive him for trying to get someone you love into trouble.

Absolutely. You only have children you can support

I see this trotted out all the time, but the reality is that if only a tiny minority had DC the world couldn't function. Most people cannot afford fully private health care, private schooling etc. It is just that some public funding is more socially acceptable than others. But if you're reliant on public funding to raise your DC, it seems hypocritical to judge others.

This has been the problem throughout the discussion - which has derailed the original topic somewhat. The problem is specifically sickness benefits and l agree that on the surface it’s an issue because the tax payer is expected to fund the choice for people to have children they are unable to support. But nothing in life is black and white. To a certain extent everyone is supported by the tax payer to have children - child benefit, help with nursery fees etc and we’re constantly being told that we’re going to be in trouble in a few years because the birth rate is dropping.

My problem is with those who are asserting (quite forcefully at times) that disabled people shouldn’t have children simply because they are disabled - the main thrust seems to be that it’s somehow unfair on the children and they will be hugely disadvantaged as a result. There’s an assumption that disabled parents will either be single mothers, or that the other partner will also be disabled so neither will be able to contribute. Some twenty years as a disability outreach worker has taught me that this is just not the case, and these assumptions are ableist and generally to support a negative narrative.

I’m stepping back from the thread now because it’s one of the most offensive and ableist I’ve come across in a long time. Deleted posts everywhere and posters feeling entitled to insult those who disagree with them. It’s depressing to realise that in enlightened times, when compassion and inclusion is being strived for in real life, that this kind of ignorant bias and prejudice is alive and well on MN.

It’s also interesting that the two people arguing here are disabled, and that one of them - myself - has over twenty years in a professional advisory capacity to disabled people. And what I’m saying is that a disabled person can be capable of looking after a baby within the confines of their own home and still not be capable of going out to work. WFH may be a possibility but there are certain elements of disability which wouldn’t present too much of a problem in the privacy of your own home, but which would have significant impact in a workplace environment.

Again, capability to rear offspring is moot if the person lacks the financial resources.

I am perfectly capable of operating a Porsche or Ferrari. But I don’t have either, because I can’t afford the cost. And my fellow citizens are neither interested nor obliged to make my costly wishes come true.

Again, the majority of our population lack the financial resources to raise a child. But we need children for society to function.

We need sensible immigration policies. There are plenty of humans on earth already.

And that’s exactly my point. So many posters here assuming that disabled people will either be single parents, or the other partner will be disabled, so neither able to work, when there are plenty of disabled people who are not in that position and can afford to raise a child without state support in the form of benefits. But the poster I was answering is of the opinion that if you have the physical capability to rear a child, you must be capable of working. I was simply pointing out that that’s an over simplification.