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:
sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 19:57

and strictlytory - I know what she spent it on because she told me. Of course it would have been nice to have it - but I don't for one minute think I should have had it!
If I had been lucky enough to have been my son's biological mummy, then I certainly would have spent it on something lovely!

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 19:58

And I'd just like to point out, I haven't "had her baby" - he's my son.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:00

I'm pretty sure than if you have a baby growing inside you, you are entitled to call yourself their Mother no matter was SS plan to do when the baby is born!

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:01

Well, this is a whole other topic and one that you don't know the detail of. She isn't his mother, I am.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:02

He was not your son when she got the grant for being pregnant though, was he? He was the baby inside her which made her just as entitled to the money as any other pregnant woman.

You may have spent it on something lovely had you given birth to him. Or, like many others the gas bill might have been massive that month.... You hardly seem to regard this woman as a person!

colditz · 19/05/2010 20:03

i'm sure the journo's came nd asked us about this before it happened. And we all said "God no, what a waste of money, how ill thought out."

then the government did it anyway

Go democracy.

funtimewincies · 19/05/2010 20:06

'What constitutes a mother' discussion aside (which I'm staying well out of) mine was spent on a car seat (keeping my baby safe and healthy) and my allotment rent and seeds (keeping us all healthy).

Fruit and veg vouchers would have been no use at all.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:08

How on earth can you say that? You have absolutely no idea of the relationship and feeling I have toward her. I have stressed over and over that I am fully supportive of the care she received during her pregnancy, and continues to receive. She is a very vulnerable woman who needs lots of support, and I hope that she gets everything that she needs. Every single day I am grateful for the gift of my son - and every day that I am with him, I talk about his birth mother and how much she wished she could have kept him.
Your comments are offensive, and completely unfounded.
I have at no point said she wasn't entitled to this money - I just used this situation as an example of why the scheme is flawed. That money could have helped her in some other way = or contributed towards the foster care for my son - whatever. Of course she was entitled to it- like you all are. But I thought the thread was about opinions on the scheme's validity.

MiladyDeWinterOfDiscontent · 19/05/2010 20:09

She spent a whole £190 on a new sofa?

That is a pretty basic sofa if you ask me.

It'll probably last about six months if she's lucky.

I'm glad she didn't have to sit on the floor for her last few months of pregnancy though.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:12

MiladyDeWinte
Oh for goodness' sake - you're missing the point. I don't begrudge her anything - other people were saying what they had spent the money on, and so was I. She was 37 weeks pg when she got the money, and then got the sofa 8 weeks later. I have no idea what colour it was, and I hope it's comfy.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:13

I never heard anything so patronising! 'I would have spent it on something lovely', she spent it on a sofa. Maybe she needed somewhere to sit? Just like other Mother's needed to pay bills or their mortgage or whatever. Unless you actually spend the whole £190 on fresh fruit and veg I don't think anyone can really have the moral highground.

MiladyDeWinterOfDiscontent · 19/05/2010 20:14

I suppose the point was that she didn't use the money to be healthy throughout the pregnancy then. She got it at 37 weeks , why?

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:17

Because there is a huge backlog Miladay.

Maybe she used other money to eat healthily and then when the HIP finally came through she could finally get the new sofa she needed?

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:21

Well, strictlytory, I'm afraid you have misread my intentions. I was merely replying to a question where somebody (forget who, sorry) asked if I was annoyed with people who have spent the money on something not fruit/veg. I was trying to say that of course I don't mind what people spend it on, and had I been in that position, I would have spent in on whatever I needed/wanted to aswell. It was not meant to be patronising, and was not a criticism of my son's birh other buying a sofa. I don't care if she put it in the slots - it's her money! Again, and hopefully for the last time, I was commenting on the validity of the scheme. I am not for one second taking any kind of moral highground, and I have no idea why you're taking swipes at me as I genuinely don't think I've said anything inflammtory. I'd also be interested to know why you felt you had to write earlier that I "hardly seem to regard this woman as a person" - what have I said that would make you think that?

QueenOfFlamingEverything · 19/05/2010 20:21

Originally the HiP grant was proposed as Child Benefit being paid from late pregnancy onwards. Then it became a one-off payment which, like CB, is not means tested. Don't see many people turning down the CB or calling it a waste of money

As for spending it on a nuchal scan, I don't see how anyone could as they need to be done at 12 weeks and the HiP grant is not paid until 25 weeks.

As others have said, the 'health' bit is that you have to have had advice and antenatal care to qualify. There is a huge problem with women, especially young or poor women, not getting antenatal care for whatever reason, and this hopefully goes some way to encouraging take-up.

I had my grant recently and spent it on a new mattress - the first new mattress I have ever had in my life - and on getting the car MOTed. Maybe not fruit and veg but pretty damn essential IMO, and had I not had the grant I'd have done without some foodstuffs in order to find the money somehow.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:21

Myabe she was like othe pg women who feel sick the whole 9 months and only crave French Fancies not carrotts and keep looking at their falling apart sofa and thinking how nice it would be to have a sofa that didn't make a massive cracking noise when sat on after the removal man dropped it....

Maybe, just maybe she was just like everyone else you has a baby and should have been left alone rather than attacked for doing what every other pg perso does but don't have their baby adopted... Imagine that!

MiladyDeWinterOfDiscontent · 19/05/2010 20:23

That makes perfect sense StrictlyTory

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:23

Milady - she got the money at 37 weeks because of the crazy red tape involved in the adoption process - she was able to access lots of other funding prior to that, and was financially cared for. Which I am pleased about, before anyone misunderstands me.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:25

Strictlytory - I have never once attacked her for ANYTHING, and have said over and over that I don't begrudge her anything! Why do you continue to jump on this. I'm glad she got a sofa. I'd buy her a house if it meant my son was delivered safe and well!

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:25

I said that because you talk about her like she is a lower form of human, she didn't spend it on something lovely! It was never her baby etc. She should have paid towards the foster care after her baby was taken away 'or contributed towards the foster care for my son' WTF! I've never ever heard anything like it!

QueenOfFlamingEverything · 19/05/2010 20:26

Originally intended as CB from 29 weeks

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:30

strictlytory When the hell have I talked about her like she is a lower life form? I said in the eyes of the law he was not her son, and I didn't say her money should have gone towards the foster care - I said in place of the grant (which is what this thread is about) that money COULD have contributed towards foster care of the child that was at huge risk. It costs this country £66,000 per year for every child in the care system.
You are either a bit ignorant, or being deliberately antagonistic. And you clearly have no knowledge of the adoption process, otherwise you wouldn't make such unfounded remarks.

expatinscotland · 19/05/2010 20:32

sterry, her name is on his birth certificate. in the eyes of the law, she is his birth mother and he is her biological son.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:34

I think you'll find that 'in the eyes of the law' a baby cannot be adopted until after it's born... the unborn child can be under SS protection but is still the child of the Mother.

mamatomany · 19/05/2010 20:36

She spent it on a sofa, that her child will never sit on or in anyway benefit from, says a lot about her priorities doesn't it, the least she could do is give the baby a good start, extra fish/fruit/veg but no a sofa.