Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 11 12

Original poster

To be highly irritated about the Twin thread - school trip fees

291 replies

DietDisaster · 09/01/2009 13:49

I can't understand how people think that having two children close together has a similar financial impact as having twins (or higher multiples) .

As a mum of dearly loved DTs, this makes me annoyed because parents of twins have to buy two lots of baby equipment (double pram, two cots, highchairs, nappies!!) at the same time and as they grow nothing can be passed down. Also have to pay two lots of childcare/nursery fees, when they want to do activities they can only do them if you can afford to pay twice (mine have to do exactly the same things as I'm not having either of them miss out). When they start school, two lots of uniform, coats, shoes not to mention trips, then there's beds, larger car, university fees etc, etc.

At least parents who have kids close together can reuse a lot of stuff and anyway, it is their CHOICE to have them close together, you have no choice over whether you have twins and I don't believe that anyone who decides to get pregnant thinks 'oh, better wait until I'm sure I can afford 2 in case I have twins'. People who have children close together can plan to space out their children if they can't afford it.

Therefore, I think schools should help out parents of twins, triplets etc and they should not have to pay the same as singletons!!

OP posts:

LargeGlassofRed · 09/01/2009 22:01

I do think it must be hard for school trips etc, there is a mum with twins and a single child in the same school year at dc's school, so the £230 for school trip is bad enough wthout having to pay it three times.
There is no consessions at the school, if you don't pay they don't go.

drinkmoretea · 09/01/2009 22:15

yanbu

it has been proven that twins cost more and parents of twins actually do lose out financially - with child benefit there has been a campaign for many years as parents of twins get the same child benefit as those of singletons, ie one lot of money for oldest child then less for younger child,

parents of twins can not choose not to hand down clothes / toys / cots we have no choice but to buy two of everything.

violethill · 09/01/2009 22:37

Two children close in age cost just as much - I needed two cots, highchairs, car seats, blah blah blah plus two sets of nursery fees - crippling.

And most twins I know are IVF - that's why there are so many around these days.

drinkmoretea · 09/01/2009 22:47

oh well thats ok then if they're ivf deserve to have to spend more...

(by the way mine aren't ivf, not that it should make a difference)

TheLadyEvenstar · 09/01/2009 22:47

Ok OP so when i moved into my new flat and my 9 yr apart ds's needed new beds and bedding, wardrobe, chest of drawers etc that cost less than buying for a set of twins?????

When at Christmas they both needed new clothes did that cost less?

violethill · 09/01/2009 22:52

It's nothing to do with 'deserving' to spend more, drinkmoretea (what a strange idea!) - I am just responding to the point at the beginning of the thread about people not 'choosing' to have twins.

If you choose to have IVF which carries a greatly increased chance of producing twins then it kind of contradicts that point doesnt it

drinkmoretea · 09/01/2009 22:53

Err.. did you not choose to have more than one child? did you not choose to have them 9 years apart??

did we choose to have twins? No, I had no reason to believe I would have twins, nothing I could have done to stop the egg splitting..

violethill · 09/01/2009 22:54

I didn't choose the age gap between mine. Total accident!

drinkmoretea · 09/01/2009 22:57

vh - right so because approx 20% of twins are from ivf that overrules??

MilaMae · 09/01/2009 22:58

I didn't choose to have IVF it was a necessity if I wanted children.

The chances of IVF actually working at all are very slim so I don't think you can say IVF mums choose to have twins how ridiculous.

drinkmoretea · 09/01/2009 22:58

no such thing as an accident though is there, either you use contraception properly or you don't

violethill · 09/01/2009 23:04

drinkmoretea - you're getting your knickers in a twist dear!
It's not about 'over ruling' - not really sure what you're on about actually! I'm just pointing out that one reason why there are huge numbers of twins around these days are because of IVF. So I don't really totally agree with the argument that everyone having twins is unfortunate in finding themself in this situation out of the blue and therefore is entitled to some kind of special treatment by schools etc

And as for saying 'no such thing as an accident' - er, presumably you have never heard of contraception failure

TheLadyEvenstar · 09/01/2009 23:06

Actually I didn't chose to have them 9 yrs apart. I was single between ds1 being 22m and 7 yrs. I then met dp and we did not even think about a baby, he is 13 yrs older than me and his other 2 are older now, 1 is 23 and the other 15, I was on the pill and I fell pg with ds2, I really wouldn't be without him but he was not planned at all.

TheLadyEvenstar · 09/01/2009 23:07

Drinkmoretea, I disagree i took my pill regularly never missed one and i still have ds1 and ds2, and they are 9 yrs apart and neither planned as i was using contraception properly.

annoyingdevil · 09/01/2009 23:26

This thread is irratating me. I have a DD & DS, 15 mths apart and have had to buy two sets of everthing - cots, highchairs, double buggy, clothes etc.

I didn't choose to have a small age gap. I have fertility issues and conceived my children late in the day (after trying for many years)

violethill · 09/01/2009 23:30

Totally agree annoyingdevil. I have a 14 month unplanned age gap - it bloody crippled us financially while they were tiny, but hey ho, that's life isn't it?

annoyingdevil · 09/01/2009 23:45

irritating that'll teach me to type after half a bottle of red!

Leslaki · 09/01/2009 23:47

My 2 re 15 months apart - ds was IVF - so planned. I had been told thaqt was it - nio chance of any more then dd cam along 15 months later. So not everyone going though IVF gets twins and not everyone has 'planned' families. Cost (aqnd still does) so much - prob as much as twins - I had to buy 1 pram/car seat/combo thing when ds was born then 15 m later had to go and buy twin stuff as ds couldn't walk when dd was born. he was still in co t so had to buy another one. So no, having them close together is not any cheaper than twins. Ds was winter and dd was summer - hardly any of the clothes fitted at the right time - those that were unisex anyway. Now, I have same problem of them wanting lots of the same activities etc but I can't afford them. When it comes to school trips I'll have to pay for 2 but won't get discounts cos they're not twins!!! Still have to pay for 2.

Think if you've got a problem with the cost of trips/subsidising others/can't afforsd it etc etc then take it up with the school as each school policy is different.

chipmonkey · 09/01/2009 23:52

I really don't think saying that someone who has twins by IVF chooses to have twins. You don't have IVF unless you are having difficulty conceiving and the odds of having a baby at all are significantly improved by implanting two embryos and even in that case there is still a good chance that you will not become pregnant so not really much of a choice!

My experience is that certain times in a child's life are expensive and for twins those expensive times are doubly expensive. For example ds1 is starting in secondary school next September and the initial costs of uniform, books etc are massive. Yes, I will have the same expense for ds2 in two years but to have it do both at the same time would be harder.

Also, our nursery charges 190 a week for a 6 month old baby, 150 a week for a toddler and 130 a week for a schoolgoing child. Yes it is expensive for me to have ds3 and ds4 there at the same time but I would much prefer having to pay those high baby fees one at a time rather than all together.

drinkmoretea · 10/01/2009 00:03

well said cm, said that much better than i can at this time of night!

vixma · 10/01/2009 00:13

We have two twins in my sons primary/secondary school. Trips cost a fortune. Just went to a place in Cornwell. I payed £220.00 for my son...mate had to pay double and really struggled ( we had a whip around cos they are awesome kids). Gets more when they get older, harder in secondary school.

violethill · 10/01/2009 00:16

It's all a bit nit picking though isn't it? I mean, someone who has just one set of twins isn't going to have the expenses of someone who has 3 or 4 children.

vixma · 10/01/2009 00:18

Quattrocento · 10/01/2009 00:51

I don't understand why parents of multiples are asking for reductions on school trips - that makes no sense. There are people with large families who have a lot of expenses as well. Surely it can't be equitable to reduce the cost of school trips for parents of multiples? Surely?

violethill · 10/01/2009 10:09

Exactly Quattro.
It's simply not reasonable to expect schools to cater for every particular pressure that comes with any particular situation -eg multiple birth, large family, children close together.
And as Quattro says, at least one advantage of multiples is that you only need to take one maternity leave! I had to take 3, including two in quick succession, which meant being poor for longer!

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 ··· 11 12