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 20:37

The adoption certificate takes place of the birth certificate, which can no longer be used as a legal document. Strictlytory, the placement order was granted before he was born. Yes of course she is and always wll be his biological mother, but she had no parental rights. This is a different issue entirely

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:38

It's your attitude, like she is nothing, that I find deeply offensive.

Your jumped right in with she doesn't deserve it as she wasn't keeping the baby so there is no point pretending now that you think she should be treated like everyone else, becuase you clearly don't!

'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!'

That is just pure nasty.

Missus84 · 19/05/2010 20:39

"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. "

If she didn't get the money til 37 weeks, I doubt she could have got through £190 of fruit and veg

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:41

Placement order. Can you not see the difference between that and saying that she was never his Mother? 'Just to clarify, even though this may be hard to understand, in the eyes of the law, he was not her son'

organiccarrotseedsareplanted · 19/05/2010 20:42

For crying out loud, leave it alone! sterry enjoy your beautiful baby boy.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:43

How is that nasty? - I said it was unnecesary. I was using it as an example of why the system is flawed. The grant is to encourage pg women to see midwives - she was seeing health care professionals at all stages. She also had several other grants. I'm glad she did - she looked after herself and my son during her pregnancy, and she is still being enable to care for herself. I hope she stays fit and healthy. It WOULD have been welcome - I didn't say I should have had it!!
I have at NO point demonstrated any opinion that she is "nothing" - it's your comments that are nasty and offensive.

clemettethecoalitionbreaker · 19/05/2010 20:45

Bloody hell - it's weird to see people who have previously castigated "benefits scroungers", turn on a woman for daring to have the gall to adopt a child and question the system that the birth mother was in!
We have no idea what the birth mother was like, but I would place money on the fact that the MN judging panel would be happy to criticise her if she had had all of this financial support, and decided not to have her baby adopted.
Sterryerryoh mentioned multiple children, abuse, neglect, social service involvement etc etc. I don't necessarily believe that crappy parents should miss out on benefits, but I don't think it's "nasty" to question whether they should.
I have no clue about the adoption process, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman who desperately wanted a child to ask about the system for those who have them and (in some cases) treat them badly.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:47

Because I would like all pg women to be treated the same? Because I still clarify a pg women as a Mother entitled to help?

I just think she deserves a little more repsect than you talking about her on MN like that.

It was not unncessary because she wasn't keeping the baby, you just think that should make a difference! She was pregnant and has done nothing wrong.

clemettethecoalitionbreaker · 19/05/2010 20:48

She was pregnant and her 8 children were in the care of social services because of systematic neglect and abuse...!

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:52

She is still pregnant women! You know what? I would rather the most vunerable people were given every encouragment possible to eat and keep themselves well. Yes, not all will act upon it, but some will and that is worth supporting.

I think it's totally unnecessary to tell everyone how 'she has to see the MW' so she shouldn't get the HIP.

sungirltan · 19/05/2010 20:52

no it shouldn't be vouchers - vouchers are stigmatising and patronising.

i dont think either should be scrapped but perhaps the threshold should be raised a bit for the surestart grant - i realised we were entitled to that (too late sadly) and without being vulgar - we are quite well off.

i think this whole government atittude of 'we cant means test its too expensive' attitude is wearing a bit thin but i do know that means testing reduces uptake significantly. i dont want the government to waste money but i dont want any babies to go without essentials/their mothers live in poverty either.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:53

She got and is still getting help. I respect her, and will always feel sadness that my joy comes from another family's misfortune. I think it was unnecessary as she was already receiving additional financial support, and the grant in no way contributed towards either her own health, or my son's. You clearly have misunderstood the serious nature behind why a woman would have all her 9 children taken into care, if you really think that she has done nothing wrong. That is, however, not the issue, and should not be taken into consideration when implementing financial grants.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:53

ooops still a pregnant woman

thesecondcoming · 19/05/2010 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

clemettethecoalitionbreaker · 19/05/2010 20:56

"I would rather the most vunerable people were given every encouragment possible to eat and keep themselves well. Yes, not all will act upon it, but some will and that is worth supporting."

I wonder why you are strictly a Tory then ... they really don't believe in such state interference.

I work with pregnant women, I see the good this grant can do, but I don't share your reverence for every pregnant mother as a madonna figure deserving of automatic respect and care. Human beings deserve supporting regardless of whether they are pregnant (it is not a disease after all...)

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 20:56

and yet you bring it up... How would anyone know of her situation were it not for you?

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:56

strictlytory - I didn't say "'she has to see the MW' so she shouldn't get the HIP" -

I merely mentioned that the whole idea behind the HIP was to ensure women saw their MW - I was stating that she was already being paid and supported to see MWs. In GENERAL terms, and in line with the OP, this supports the opinion that the HIP is a waste of good money as it has been implemented badly. 'Twas an example.

sterrryerryoh · 19/05/2010 20:59

She hasn't been identified! And I haven't said that she shouldn't have received the existng grant! And I haven't tried to "trump her" in any way - she gave birth to him, I am his mother. That's how it works. Can you really not understand that I don't begrudge her help of all kinds? I "brought it up" in answer to some of your more ignorant questions

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 21:01

The Conservatives do support the help given to the most vunerable. This woman was clearly very vunerable and so imo, needed all the help and encouragement she could get.

She knew her child was being taken away and chose to spend the money on a sofa. If I was adopting that baby I would think myself lucky that a woman in a difficult situation spent the money on furniture and not drugs or booze....

sungirltan · 19/05/2010 21:02

re the birth mother/adoptive family issue - i think the birth mother deserved to not be stigmatised even more by being denied ordinary pregnancy benefits.

perhaps something fairer would have been for the adoptive family to be entitled to the grant AS WELL AS the birth mother.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 21:05

Yes because there are so many women out there who have had 9 children taken away... It would be almost impossible to identify her...

I never said she was perfect, only that she was pregnant. You seem desperate to tell the world her faults so go on.

clemettethecoalitionbreaker · 19/05/2010 21:08

sterryerryoh, you don't owe anyone any explanations. You asked a valid question, some people have chosen to misinterpret it, such is AIBU. But, having known people go through the adoption journey, you have been through enough stress, soul-searching and micro-surveillance already!

StrictlyTory, please forgive me while I pick myself off the ground - support the most vulnerable?? - what by cancelling grants, abandoning surestart and proposing tax breaks for the rich at the expense of tax benefits for the poor. You are frankly deluded.

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 21:08

That's all I was saying sungirltan that she didn't deserve to be treated differently from everyone else! She was pregnant she got a grant, I just find it totally unnecessary for it ever to have mentioned that she didn't keep the baby. That has nothing to do with being pregnant. What she spent it on could be discussed like what everyone else spent it on.

clemettethecoalitionbreaker · 19/05/2010 21:09

Sadly, nine children taken away is not unusual. Time to enter the real world (leaving behind the "all mothers are sacred" one...)

StrictlyTory · 19/05/2010 21:10

It's funny then that the LD's wanted to scrap TC's for everyone and CTF's too, but it was the Conservatives that wanted to keep them for the most vunerable...