To think that being a single SAHM on benefits is not a 'lifestyle choice' but .........

[Littleredshoe]

basically scrounging ?

Surely being lucky enough to SAH with your children comes IF you can afford it? Either because you work part time, or have a partner who provides for you to do this.....

To just 'decide' that you 'prefer' not to work and live off benefits (when you are fit to work) is ridiculous and it makes me bl**dy angry that I pay tax to enable others to sit on their arses......

maybe I am ? But ......I bet there would be a lot less feckless teenage mothers if the 'right' to benefits and SAH was withdrawn.....

ok, the csa won't take payment from him, why can't he post money through the door?

whatever she is, the money is about his children, dispite weather he gets to see them or not - feeble excuse imo.

She talked him into having children? Do you mean, he does not understand the basics of human reproduction? If he does, then surely he knew that unprotected sex was likely to result in children which it woiuld be his duty to help support? Most fathers I know (all in fact) would rather go short themselves than risk their children going short.

If he is really saying that he is happy for them to go short if he does not have access when he wants, then I don't think twat covers it. They are his children.

You don't mention for how long a period the 50 pounds were supposed to cover. A week? A month?

lol at you Katie what with your "struggling to buy your kids organic food and Boden" {hmm}

If he posts money through the door what exactly would that achieve ?
She would still claim benefits and the children I very much doubt would receive a penny.
Yes my brother is an idiot but he goes to work which puts him a damn sight higher in my opinion than that stupid mare who tells him to steal and sell drugs to fund her nights out. The children are mere pawns in this situation and as I say many of her friends.
If benefits weren't an option for women who have never been in any sort of relationship with the father of their children (which is what she claims as she won't naming him on the birth certificates) then those two would never have been born, she didn't want them, they bring her no joy but she needed them because the alternative was going to work, god forbid.

No Cory, she led him to believe he was going to have a family, he thought, wrongly he was going to be a father, that was never her intention.

KatieDD on Thu 06-Nov-08 15:12:12
"No Cory, she led him to believe he was going to have a family, he thought, wrongly he was going to be a father, that was never her intention."

What do you mean? He is a father. Once you have contributed to the making of a child you are their parent and you are responsible. Her intention has nothing to do with it, it's about him feeling responsible for his own flesh and blood, not about what he can get out of it.

Why did he not insist on having his name on the birth certificate? And can he not take her to court for a DNA test and sue for access?

so he has opened a savings account for them for when they are older,? i presume?

And if she is a drug addict and an unsuitable mother, he could sue for custody.

Why if she left him off first bc did he go onto have more children with her? I think CSA can demand DNA tests (happened to gay friend of mine when he refused to accept paternity for mad pregnant woman who latchedonto him - long story).

jesus Katie, you struggle to buy organic food and Boden?

life's a bitch, eh

Sorry, I can't read the whole thread, much too long for me!

But for what it's worth, yabvu, obviously.

However, I do disagree with the viewpoint that sah is a 'right' (wether or not that is the case legally in this country). I tend to think of 'rights' as things I think people the world over should have, clean water, a decent legal system, food healthcare etc, and for this reason don't see sah as a right, no matter for what reason. But I am EXTREMELY glad that I live in a country where we are afforded luxuries like this when we need them.

Because Cory the boy has no self esteem left, we're all tired of fighting with her. She has what she wants her two children, she's put him through hell and right now he has nothing left. So when she calls he jumps, gives her what he can, get laughed at and told it's not enough and then gets told to fuck off.
He's not a father, he's a sperm donor, which is all she ever wanted from him.
She isn't a drug addict, she is a perfectly capable mother, certainly nothing for SS to be concerned about otherwise I'd have called them myself.
For all any of us know he may well have set up an account for them, but at 18 that's not really the sort of thing you'd think of is it.
Of course he shouldn't have had the 2nd child, they are 16 months apart, he was a damn fool to go back there, all he ever says about that is that it was easier to go back than it was to stay away.
As for the CSA demanding anything, they just don't.
We as a family have to sit back and wait for those children to decide that they want to know their father and family.
I'm afraid you have to accept that for every battered wife, for every abused woman there is at least one other that chooses her single parenthood, Sally my brothers ex is far from alone.

TBH the most surprising thing from this little chat about my family is that none of you think as an equal parent he shouldn't be allowed to see those children ?
He has fought and fought been to solicitors that can do nothing, has tried to reason with her.
My mother has given the girl toys and clothes and presents for her grandchildren and had them snatched off her and the door slamned in her face and now we aren't even allowed to know where they live.
In the eyes of the law he is nothing to those children and yet you think he should be posting money through the door and setting up savings accounts ?

Right. Well that explains your extremely jaundiced and bitter view about single mothers.

However, the vast majority of women do not regard men as sperm donors. My children's father is named on their birth certs. I spent 8 yrs with him. I had every bit as much optimism that it would work out as you did to begin with I'm sure.

Also, you've only heard/accepted one side of the story.

You need to stop generalising people. The vast majority of single mothers are no more like your x SIL than the man on the moon.

Do you know if she was the only one, i'd agree with you but as I say, she has a sister who did the same, a mate who did the same, a younger step sister who guess what, has done the same. We've met them and being verbally abused by them on several occasions. She didn't think of this wonderful idea all by herself.
For every battered wife there's one of these daft mares who thinks that they can a) treat people like this and it won't affect their child/ren. b) never intended to do anything but work the system.

YOu know if I anecdotalised every mad married mother I knew and presented that to the world as justification for the idea that married mothers are bitches/ insane/ pathetic I would be rightly perceived as a total idiot.

But somehow you know 4 idiot single mothers and you're allowed to extrapolate that they're representative, and people can take you seriously enough to argue with you about it.

Honestly Mumsnet has so dumbed down.

And yet nobody disagrees that it's 4 too many ???
With respect every mad married mother, of which I know plenty who are supporting themselves can be as mad as a march hare for all I care because they are mad at somebody else's expense ie not mine.

No one disagrees that it's four too many because we are all extremely about your generalisations and your - or your brother's - version of events.

I don't think anybody would hesitate to slag off married mother's on benefits if that was their decision, this is getting rather silly now wouldn't you say ?
It's the sitting on their arse type of person with or without children that are getting slagged off here.