Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be annoyed RE healthy pregnancy grant

263 replies

RedRedWine1980 · 18/05/2010 13:10

Especially as someone on facebook has mentioned going to Zara to spend it....is this just another ridiculous waste of public funds or what?

OP posts:
Rockbird · 19/05/2010 12:09

Do people seriously have children purely for benefits etc? I mean really? It's a 'fact' that's banded around a lot but, having had one child, I can safely say that there is no way in hell i would have a baby for £190 or whatever it is. Pregnancy, those first months with a newborn, tantruming toddlers... it'd take a lot more than that to make it worth my while.

biddysmama · 19/05/2010 12:14

i agree with rockbird... babies cost alot more than £690 (sure start plus hipg)

in fact the double i am getting 2nd hand was gunna cost us that new!

expatinscotland · 19/05/2010 12:15

'Do people seriously have children purely for benefits etc?'

I personally know three people who have.

My SIL is one of them.

Her partner's claim for ESA got turned down, she was put on JSA because her elder two were over 7 and she wasn't finding any jobs she liked.

So she got pregnant.

She doesn't live with the partner, she was going to if he got ESA.

She had a baby last month now she's back on IS.

The gal who used to live next door did, too. She was pretty open about it.

And one gal I know from playgroup.

It isn't so much for the grants as for income support because then you don't have to be on JSA for a while.

And bigger tax credits.

It wouldn't be a path I'd take, but hey ho. Some do it and like it.

lal123 · 19/05/2010 12:34

I agree that for the most part HIP grant is a waste of money - but if it encourages some women who otherwise wouldn't receive any ante-natal care to go to a mw then its not all bad.

Re getting pregnant to get benefits - when I'd just graduated and went to sign on (about 14 years ago now!) I remember the woman there asking if I had any children. When I said no, she asked if I was planning on having any because that would make it easier for me to get on housing list. I was especially as I hadn't even asked about housing.

mamatomany · 19/05/2010 12:35

I don't believe many have children for benefits, I used to live in a deprived area as a child and grew up with plenty of girls who didn't have many opportunities in life and most had one child at 16 - 20 and that was it.
But that of course was back in the day when you didn't have to work when the child was 7, so now in order to ensure a lifetime of being kept you do need to have more babies.
You wonder whether it's cheaper to just give up on the make them go back to work plan in exchange for the fact that they don't have more children.

beanlet · 19/05/2010 12:35

I thought it was dumb, except for people on benefits/in the poverty trap who couldn't usually afford fruit and vegetables but lately I've been noticing our food bills, with me now at 34 weeks, have gone up massively due to the cost of all the extra fresh stuff we've been buying. So I'm grateful for the handout. (BTW fruit and vegetables have gone up 10% in price in the last quarter )

Beveridge · 19/05/2010 12:44

I spent my HIP grant on an inflatable birth pool, as i was planning a home birth but the local health authority doesn't lend these.

Even though I felt a bit guilty just being handed £190 (DH and i are not loaded by any stretch of the imagination but we do have quite good jobs), I did think at least I was using it to have the most cost-effective birth possible for the NHS so I felt quite responsible and public spirited!

Even though I didn't even get the damn thing out of the box because I had to go into hospital to get checked when it all kicked off and I ended up in theatre with forceps and spending 3 nights in a mat ward...but hey, ho...

nappyaddict · 19/05/2010 13:38

I know people who have spent it on baby related stuff which IMO is OK. But to hear of people spending it on holidays really annoys me.

slushy06 · 19/05/2010 14:38

I spent mine on fruit I couldn't eat much else only salads and fruit. But I would have bought that anyway and it meant I had free money for a pram because I wasn't spending it on fruit each week.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 15:07

I have an adopted son, and his birth mother was given the £190 grant, even though his placement into care had been granted by 26 weeks of pregnancy. As she had to see the midwife anyway as she was under social services observation, it was a bit unnecessary in her case - as adopters it cost us a fortune to go through the process. It would have been a very welcome grant for us!

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 16:02

But sterry she was the one who was pregnant! The whole point of the grant is to aid the health of the Mother. The fact she had her child adopted is hardly the point, she still spent 9 months pregnant and needed to look after her body... No offense but you weren't pregnant so there is no way you should have got the money

MorrisZapp · 19/05/2010 16:27

Hope this survives until I can claim it - is exactly what I paid for nuchal scan that others get for free.

I don't feel guilty at all - I pay in plenty and hardly take anything back overall so as far as I'm concerned it's a thank you pressie from the state for all that I do.

I can think of a million other things that we cheerfully spend public money on that I'd scrap before I scrapped this grant.

flockwallpaper · 19/05/2010 16:28

Yep, complete waste of taxpayers money. If women need to be bribed to access the excellent and free antenatal care on offer in this country then I would seriously question their readiness for the responsibility of parenthood TBH.

expatinscotland · 19/05/2010 17:54

I do agree, flock.

Missus84 · 19/05/2010 18:00

It would maybe be more sensible to give women vitamin pills and vouchers for milk/fruit/veg at every antenatal appointment - then those who needed them could use them, and those who already buy plenty of fruit and veg from Waitrose wouldn't bother.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 18:13

strictlytory - my point is that she was financially provided for at every step of her pregnancy through social services - she got her "health-in-pregnancy" grant in the 37th week of her pregnancy, and spent it on a new sofa. I'm not saying I should have received it - but I think it needs means testing, and I think financial aid should go where it's needed, and not just handed out unnecessarily

thesecondcoming · 19/05/2010 18:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 18:54

Exactly what I though thesecondcoming!

And sterry you did say you thought you should have got it, I quote 'it would have been a very welcome grant for us'

Just because you spent a lot of money on an adoption does not negate the fact that a women carried a baby for 9 months and so was perfectly entitled to claim the HIP grant. What she spent it on is totally irrelevent to the fact you think she shouldn't get it because the baby was being adopted

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 19:00

'it was a bit unnecessary in her case - as adopters it cost us a fortune to go through the process. It would have been a very welcome grant for us! '

This really makes me so mad you know. That 'woman' is a person. This is not the bloody film 'The Island' She doesn't get to keep her child so she should get any help either, I mean would you rather they said to her 'go ahead love, you can't keep the baby so smoke 50 fags a day and stuff yourself with Mars Bars' or would you rather they actually treated her like any other pregnant Mother and gave her the money to encouage her to eat healthily???

She's not a 2nd class citizen you know.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 19:40

strictlytory - of course I don't think that - that's my son! What I was trying to say, perhaps not very eloquently, is that social services paid her over £100 a week to take care of herself and the baby. She got the £190, which she spent on herself, in the final stages of the pregnancy - so pretty unnecessary imo. My son was removed from her because of the gross abuse, neglect and physical damage inflicted on her 8 other children. I didn't say that I thought we should have it - I said it would have been welcome - this is why I asked earlier on in the thread what people spent the grant on, in the main? Most people seem to have put it towards something for the baby, which would have been advantageous in our situation. I don't know why it makes you mad that I mentioned that it has cost us a lot of money to become parents and take a child from the care system into a loving home - it did! And actually, yes - it does annoy me a bit that his birth mother was given this money, on top of everything else. I KNOW she's not a second class citizen - she is the birth mother of my son. But throwing £190 at her so she could buy furniture does grate a little. She was well cared for and helped throughout her pregnancy and I would have it no other way - but I am entitled to the opinion that the £190 should have gone in some way (whether in her pregnancy or afterwards) towards the care of my son!

thesecondcoming · 19/05/2010 19:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 19:47

How can you possbily know what she spent it on? Again, as she was the pregnant one she can spend it on whatever she wanted. Is a sofa any worse than a fancy changing bag? No. Is it better than spending it on crack? Yes.

She had another benefits because her situation made her entitled to them. You didn't get the HIP because it had nothing to do with you, so I do find it very odd that you seem to be considering how nice it would be to get it.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 19:51

Exactly TSC.

Do you think that as you have her baby you should somehow get back everything that was spent on her? Should she have been allowed free prescriptions?

She was PREGNANT and had a baby. She has not taken anything that was not hers.

Missus84 · 19/05/2010 19:53

Every pregnant woman gets the money - does it matter if it gets spent on a sofa, or new clothes, or yoga? No restrictions are put on how you spend the money, presumably she went to the antenatal appointments so is as entitled to the money as anyone else.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 19:53

thesecondcoming
I think my opinions aren't coming across very well. I haven't said that my son's birth mother shouldn't have been cared for, and haven't said I think I should have been entitled to the grant. I was merely using her as an example of why I personally feel this grant is a waste of tax payers' money in the main, with it not being means tested, and would have been happier if it had been spent, in some way, on his care. Just to clarify, even though this may be hard to understand, in the eyes of the law, he was not her son. Of course I acknowledge that she was pregnant, and should be treated as any pregnant mother should. And she was.
And I am in no way "shitty to her" - I don't remain neutral - she is my son's birth mother and will always be an important part of his life story. I'm not annoyed with ANYONE for receiving this grant, and spending it on whatever the heck they want - I would have loved to have had some help, but genuinely do not feel entitled to any!
Just wanted to clarify - I'm not at all bitter, I just think that this situation illustrates why it is a poorly thought-out scheme. That's all

Swipe left for the next trending thread