To think that the council should not be leaving a single mum, with her three children to kip down on her mothers floor

[ijustwanttoaskaquestion]

I am not entirely sure of all the details but i just feel that the situation my niece is being left in is not right, as in, i think something has gone wrong with her local council housing system.

So, she is 23 has three under three, her partner left her when she was pregnant with her third - he just disappeared. Hes a twunt apparently, well rid. They had a rented place but he didnt pay the rent so they were evicted. Because of this, the council told my neice she was "intentionally homeless" and woudlnt put her on the waiting list. Eventually she contacted her MP who contacted the council, as it was not my niece who was evicted but her partner who she now has nothing to do with. She was told she was a priority case and was given a password for the online bidding system. She since has her third child and informed the council - now, this is second hand, but apparently she was told this "we have changed the system now, you are now on the bottom of the list and you can expect to be living on your mother's floor for the next three to five years".

She has three children, she sleeps on the sofa and the children are sleeping in travel cots. Her mum basically lives in her bedroom, although why its like that i dont know - its a three bedroom housing association house, but there is the my neice, her mum, her brother living there - the third bedroom which was my nieces is a box room and apparently being used for storage.

This cannot be right?? Surely, leaving aside the fact that she was less than sensible to put herself in this situation by not sorting out contraception after the first child, there are still three children living in unacceptable conditions. Apparently, my niece is coping very well but it must be so hard for her.

She does not get on with her housing officer and feels she is prejudiced against her for getting the MP involved in the first instance, i cant say whether this is true or not.

What can she do?? Can she not rent privately and claim housing benefit? The council have told her they wont support her in this.

As i say, i don't know the full situation but wondered if anyone has any advice for organisations to approach etc - people to write too, appropriate thigns to write to the council to make sure her case is being handled properly.

I dont want to say where she lives in case she is a mnetter. But i know it varies from council to council. I just find it hard to believe that someone in her position wouldn't be on the priority housing list.

Hi

I'm new but have been lurking for a while, you can thank the Daily Mail for that

I just want to comment on the post by Sparklefrog, where she mentions about condoms being one the least reliable forms of contraception.

I did read, a long time ago, that condoms are 97% effective so checked on this website

www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraception/Pages/condoms.aspx

(hope that works)

It says on there about condoms, "If used correctly and consistently, male condoms are 98% effective." So, although less than most of the other forms of contraception listed on that page condoms are still reliable and also the only protection against pregnancy and STIs.

As others have been said the only 100% 'method' is celibacy. It's about time people took responsibility for their actions, both male and female.

I see your point kat2907, as I do everyone else's. It just seems unfair to me.

A woman can have sex, which carries the risk of pregnancy, and has a choice of many different contraceptions to choose from to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

A man's contraception goes as far as a condom.

If a woman has unprotected sex, she can take further measures to lessen her risk of continuing with a possible pregnancy. She can take the morning after pill, have an IUD fitted, or have a termination.

A man, being the prospective father in that situation can ermmm twiddle his thumbs and wait for the woman to make her mind up.

He can voice his objections to her continuing with a pregnancy, but he can't have anymore than a say.

It seems massively unfair to men in this case, and I wish there was as much contraception available for men as there is for women, to redress the balance a little.

I chuckled when you mentioned about having a word with Mother Nature, since I don't believe it was Mother Nature who gave women the choice of contraceptives women have, or the option of morning after pills/IUD's and terminations.

I understand that men can say NO, and abstain, as much as women can, but let's be realistic, people have sex for pleasurable reasons far far more often than to conceive.

There are millions of people who neither want chidren nor want to sacrifice having sex. So I'm not sure that is the answer.

Would it be so unfair for a man to have the option to relinquish all responsibility for a child he does not wish to have, if it is in a time frame of say 6 weeks from conception?

This doesn't mean that the good old tax payer would have to stump up, but that the mother would be continuing in the pregnancy, if that is what she chose to do of course, knowing full well that she was choosing to 'go it alone' without the support of the father, or she may decide she doesn't want to have a child without the support of the DC's father, and in that case, she can also make an informed choice as to whether she continues with the pregnancy or not.

Hard choices I know, but unprotected sex can lead to making some hard horrible choices.

Of course, if the father were to relinquish all responsibility for the child, he would not have the right to see the child, have any say in the child's upbringing, or have any pleasure from seeing the child grow up.

Is it such a bad idea?

I don't have all the answers, but be fair, how many women on here would happily support children that they chose not to have?? (If it was the other way round?)
I wonder how many women would say they would be quite happy to support their child from their XP, just because HE wanted a child, irrelevant of her feelings or opinions on the matter?

Angelcat666 Like I said, the least reliable method of contraception is condoms.

They may be up there at 98%, but they still fail more often than other forms of contraception (except withdrawal and the rhythm method).

'It just seems unfair to me.'

Well, that's life. It's unfair to me that I still have a period every month even though I don't want any more children.

Biology's a bitch.

If a man is really that dead set against having a child and still wants to have sex he can get a vasectomy and wait for the all-clear letter.

Then, he is sterile.

Otherwise, tough shit.

If he values his feelings on the matter so much then abstain from having sex.

Biology doesn't care about fair.

There is no way to make it "fair" because it isn't. Men need to suck it up. If you don't want to risk impregnating someone and them choosing to not have an abortion then you need to not have sex with them. That is where a man's right to have a say in pregnancy ends.

It isn't fair it is fact.

the man has his say....its either use a condom, don't have sex, ot take a risk....

Angelcat666, welcome to mumsnet - you look like you have some very definate views, you are going to LOVE it here!!!!!

I had 1 condom baby, as a young single mum, and 1 what will be will be baby later in life - love them both the same! if i had my time over again, i wouldnt change my children, but i would have changed the timing somewhat! Saying that, my first child was my motivation to go to uni and sort my life out - i wasnt particularly wayward but certainly aimless - i often wonder if having children is what people need sometimes to give them direction - obviously not before they are albe to cope financially etc, but you know what i mean.

Expat - i am going to try and get my DN on to my facebook account - i cant find her, and have a chat with her about things, contraception defo not an issue just now - but its something i guess i would feel happier if she was sorted. She isn't without support, her 74 year old nan is taking two buses across london three times a week to help her get the kids out etc, her mother - fuck all, useless cow!!!

Or get a vasectomy.

I know personally and well several men who chose this because they truly never ever wanted to father children at all in their lives.

They're all happy with the decision, and took years to take the decision they felt best for them.

It is an option for a male who doesn't want children or anymore children and still wants to have sex.

The more i think about this situation the more i become. Its not good harping on about the rights and wrongs of bringing three unplanned kiddies into the world, they are here! Now it is up to the mums mother to help her out - its pants but thats what life has given them, she should have equipped her daughter with more info re contraception the minute she was in a relationship - i badgered my DD onto the pill just in case - mind you, i had a baby when DD1 was 15 and she was like, mum, i need some family planning advice!!! But what imo should happen is, the mother should apply to her Housing association for a bigger house, the brother needs to move out (hes 26FFS and can go and live with his dad if need be) and those children need to be given a stable family life, i would want my DD where i could keep an eye on her and ensure she is coping - as im sure many of you know - 3 children is hard work, 3 under 3? tenfold and when you are maybe not the brightest spark in the box - well.....

I think you are being a bit unfair on the Mum there, she is helping out, her daughter and grandchildren are housed and safe and warm. It is also unfair to expect the brother to move because his sister is being irresponsible with birth control.

Do you have room for them? Is there something you can actually do to make it easier?

I agree with Morloth.

Also, it is not the grandmother's job to provide a stable life, it's her daughter's, teh mother of the children.

She's housing her child and grandchildren, she's probably buying food and paying the power bill as well.

And I don't see why the brother should move, either, because his sister made poor choices over and over.

This young woman is 23. If her condition is such that she can't cope with sorting out her life for the children, then SS does need to be involved, unfortunately.

morloth and expat - I can see what you are saying but I think better her family looks after them (whether they have any responsibility or not) if they are able than the state as it leaves more in the pot for people who are completely without support and the family will provide better support even if they are rubbish. Sounds like the mum is patrially responsible anyway for not supporting the daughter enough in the first place.

the mum is definitely more responsible than ss anyway...

The mum is looking after her though isn't she? I really can't see how it has anything whatsoever to do with the brother.

If my life went pear-shaped (and it absolutely could) I wouldn't expect my Mum to turf my brother out to make room for myself and kids. He has nothing to do with anything.

There comes a point where you have to stop blaming your parents for your bad choices, personally I think 23 is past that point. As expat says, if the girl really can't sort herself out then maybe the best thing is for SS to help out. That is kind of the point of SS isn't it? If she can't look after herself and nobody else will then she does need access to the "pot".

What more can the Mum do? She has made room for her daughter and grandchildren and is working herself. Rent/electricity and food don't pay for themselves.

So, the mum is 23, has mild learning difficulties that means she is incapable of making proper informed choices.
Choices about birth control, choices about relationships, choices which affect her children.
But she has 3 children under 3 and the state is expected to support her in looking after these children.
Jesus, our society is fucked up, isn't it?

well yes, but I agree with the op that the mum should carry on as it is really her responsibility rather than the state's particularly if the daughter has LDs. I don't think the brother should be turfed out necessarily but 26 seems terribly old to still be at home with mummy. 23 may be past that point but she didn't make the bad choices at 23 did she if she is 23 now? Presumably the bad choices began in her teens and she has the chance to start again now. She'll have access to the pot whatever and be able to chip in but it sounds like she has a low IQ and needs some support with life - better her mum provides that than the state all round.

Has she at least some sort of contraception plan in place for after she has her 3rd child? Hasn't anyone given her any advice since the last her first?- the HV or GP?

I really don't understand what more the Mother can do she has offered her home,possibly the bills and food allowances why on earth should the brother move out because of the girls poor choices just because he is 26?

Sorry if I missed this but is she has 3 babies, no Father to support and LD won't SS be involved as a matter of course?

What more can the Mum (Grandma) do?

Try to sort a bigger house or help her sort out housing and try to get her onto contraception - basically what the OP is doing and what she could have done at least after the first baby if not when her daughter became sexually active.

Right, I'm back....had to take dog for a walk and get some bread.

ijustwanttoaskaquestion, thank you for the welcome and yes, on some subjects I have definite views, although I try to put them across in a reasoned way and listen to others views too

Sparklefrog you forgot the diaphragms which are 92 - 96% reliable , sorry, being a bit faceious there, but leaving that aside I'd love there to be more choices of contraceptive available to men to. Having said that I'm not sure I'd trust men to take them, plenty moan about having to use condoms and see contraception as the responsibility of the woman (not all men I hasten to add).

To get back to other aspects of the debate, I agree with Expat that contraception does need to be sorted out, preferably something like the IUD or even the implant, which she doesn't have to remember to take/see to on a daily basis. I appreciate she's already pregnant but it needs to be done asap after the birth. Maybe her HV could help with that.

As for accommodation the best way to go is private rent, after getting as much advice as possible. The CAB is good for that, you may have to make an appointment.

I also agree with Expat about SS getting involved. This young woman, from the info given in this thread, certainly needs some support and if not from her family then from them. Surestart/Homestart are good places to get advice too.

Read this thread when it was started and meant to post but didn't have time. Have read some of the posts not all and can't believe that some people are being so judgemental.

I thought council housing was supposed to be made available to the most vulnerable members of our society - this is a young woman(and 23 is young), without much in the way of personal resource or education; she is responsible for 3 toddlers/babies and has been abandoned by her partner - she sounds pretty damn vulnerable to me. Rehouse her now!

I thought the Mum had a part-time job at a supermarket? Where is she going to get the cash to pay for a bigger house?

Also you can't make someone take contraception, as we have no idea what happens in the day to day lives of the family concerned how do we know that the younger Mum hasn't refused to do so?

I agree, why should the brother move - his sisters lifestyle choices are nothing to do with him.

She's 23 and old enough to look after herself and her children, after all she did choose to bring them into the world. She can work, tax credits will help with childcare costs in the early years when its more expensive. That way, she can get a private let if she wants her own bed and rooms.

Saying to support single mums who choose not to work as they are raising the future tax payers is not all true, most children who grow up on benefits go on to claim themselves and the cycle simply repeats itself costing the tax payers even more.

As for CleaoMam, worlds fail me.

Where a parent has lost her husband/partner due to death, I agree support should be in place for a while until they get themselves on their feet but our benefit system simply allows it to be a lifestyle choice.

The mum wouldn't be paying for all of the house she lives in now though would she from a part-time supermarket job? The son and daughter should be contributing, if they are not already and they may be at least already partially supported by the state. The mum has clearly not been successful in her own life - why is she a grandma living in a housing association house, 2 grown up kids living unsuccessful lives that still need her support and only a part-time job?