If society is willing to fund childcare for working parents - should parents of disabled children be equally entitled to this?

[MamaLlama123]

As a society we spend millions on funding childcare for working parents - policy is framed as this “free childcare for working parents”. One of the main arguments for access to this free childcare is because women shouldn’t have to give up careers/ pensions/ financial independence when they become mothers

However families of disabled/ send children often find that these hours are unusable in practice because settings can’t meet needs/ reduced timetables or simply will not offer places. Is seems unfair that mothers are expected to step down from work/ reduce hours/ absorb all caring responsibility. nurseries/ schools will often say that the requires requires a 1:1 to access the setting which no one seems prepared to fund

The parents with the highest caring responsibilities often greater financial pressure have least access to childcare and the workforce. Any if lack of childcare pushes these women/ families out of the workforce - then shouldn’t the benefits system compensate for this, for the earning and pension losses that result. An example of this that the money spent on 30hrs free childcare place to be directly given the the family

Or should these mothers/ families just accept that they should be at home? If a mother of a disabled does wish to maintain her career/ work - is this a legitimate goal that society should support or is that selfish because her child’s needs are greater.

I would be interested to hear thoughts as well as hear from families in a similar position

Op there simply isn’t enough money for everyone to get hand outs for everything. Having a child is a choice. A privalge and one we do knowing full well the risks associated with it. When that risk comes to pass, then it’s on the parents. Not society to step in and pay via taxes.

evrryone wants to be paid for now. And our tax burden is already some of the highest globally.

yes if someone, mother or father has to give up work to care for a child it will often result in a significant loss of income. But having that child was a choice and a privalge.

at the moment we have children entitled to full time education from reception age, at which point many parents find they can work with school hours if they have a disabled child (although many cant)

And we have shared parental leave that has some financial element for 9 months.

Then we have a system where between 9 months and starting school we get 30 hours for working parents.

But some parents of disabled children who will be able to access education cant access this so drop out the workforce and then presumably find it harder to reenter 3 or 4 years later.

How many parents fall into this category of between 9 months and 4 who cant access the childcare? Are people massively overestimating the numbers when they talk about costs.

It isn’t just those preschool years.

Our son is in full time education, however he quite regularly needs collecting. We also have links with 7 different external bodies, all of which require meetings and appointments.

We are (very) fortunate to have flexible employers and roles, but the time burden of having a disabled child doesn’t just end when they go to school, if they go to school, and is greater because of their needs.

I understand that and perhaps I wasnt explicit enough with my statement that many cant work- but that felt a different problem. Your medical appointments arent because you cant access childcare. Yes they impact earnings. My son had no school place at all for a year when he was 7 and no childcare was available, once he had a school place and was not longer on a reduced timetable - it really helped.

But the op was about the 30 free hours for that preschool age and which is framed as access for work - whereas education is framed as a right for the child. So because its not a right for the child is dont think the emphasis on making it accessible is there in quite the same way?

The govt contributes to childcare because it wants all the parents out there contributing to GDP and contributing lots of tax.

It has nothing to do with concern for the woman, her career or her old age. It's purely about money.

Care for children with additional needs would be so expensive that it would cancel out any increase in GDP or tax generated, so it's not worth their while to do it.

I have to ask, where on earth do you live that 30 hours a week childcare is £80?!?

I find it more about the women contributing financially to society and paying taxes. So of your child can go to childcare then fill your boots.

I'm not sure it does anyone any good pretending we can just 'aim' to be better at everything. What does this look like when we have finite resources and money? Of course we should be as efficient and strategic as possible to achieve the most we can but at some point priorities need to be made and we have to accept that somethings and some people lose out. This becomes even more pressing when issues outside our control like global events mean we have to pump loads more money into defence. This doesn't come from nowhere so what now is not getting funded?

Suggesting that anyone can get all their needs met (disabled or not) or that parents could be funded to go to their own children's medical appointments is completely unrealistic. Since the dawn of time parents have had to shoulder the responsibility for their children and there is always a risk that this responsibility will be heavy when there is a disability involved. The previous century has given a false illusion that the state can absorb this and remove this responsibility but it simply can't. As a child's parents you will always care more about your child than strangers and the state. The state's legal responsibilities and obligations can alter over time but this remains true. When the state fails to adequately provide for the child then the parents will step in because they care the most.

There are also many pensioners receiving significant benefits eg state pension despite the situation that the country can’t really afford it. So I don’t think the argument that the country can’t afford it holds up. The UK spends billions on pensioners despite many having significant assets and the taxpayer not really been able to afford it

When the state fails to adequately provide for the child then the parents will step in because they care the most.

And when the state fails to adequately support families with disabled children and consequently parent carers reach carer burnout, the cost to the state is far greater in the longer term.

And when disabled children don’t have their needs met, it costs the state more in the longer term.

It is shortsighted to only consider the immediate costs.

Where did I say that? I’m stating that there are things open to families with disabled parents that aren’t to other parents, and vice versa so you can’t just single one one thing and say that group should receive the cash equivalent.

Regardless the idea that they can’t work is very narrow minded, many families either due to industry, shift pattern or cost work opposite shifts and don’t use traditional childcare. Parents of disabled children aren’t ruled out of work by default.

This.

Make Carers a decent amount, enable claimants to also claim free prescriptions etc like other benefits and taper it not stop it completely for people eho do work.

Old age is far more inevitable than having a child with a disability. So I recommend we stop all pension benefits and let people support themselves. We all know the risks, it's on the elderly to anticipate it and cover it.

That's how I interpreted your 'Then there are other things those parents have available to them, respite care and DLA which can allow them to have more time if their dc needs care'.

if you think working and parenting disabled dc is anywhere near near the same as working and parenting non disabled dc you're very naive.

As someone with a disabled relative I can tell you that not meeting a lot of his needs wouldn't necessarily result in higher costs to the state in the future. It would just impact his current lifestyle and quality of life. It's like saying meeting non disabled children's needs always lead to higher costs in the future. Not all needs are equally important in that respect.

Equally not all carers will burn out to the pont where the state needs to step in. Most don't.

Even if only some would be worse off it still increases costs to the state.

If you look at a population level not meeting needs does lead to increased costs. Even if DC will never be independent the right support now can, for example, be the difference between:
Needing 1:1 or 2:1 (or even 3:1 or 4:1) as an adult.
A residential placement being needed or a placement within the community.
An ordinary residential placement or a secure placement.
24/7 care or only care for some of the time.
Contact with the justice system and not.
Being eligible for CHC funding or not.
Someone needing prolonged hospital stays in the future or not.
Educationally, it can be the difference between a successful SI or not.
It doesn’t need everyone to have higher costs longer term for the state’s overall costs to be higher.

It doesn’t need most carers to reach carer burnout for it to cost the state significant amounts of money.

The Disabled Children’s Partnership’s Failed and Forgotten research found “three in four parents have had to give up employment or their whole careers, due to lack of support” and “half of parents of disabled children are unable to work and have experienced poverty, because of lack of support for their child.”

When relationships breakdown, costs to the state often increase. 38% experienced marriage/relationship breakdown within the previous 12 months.

According to Contact, only 16% of mothers with disabled DC are in employment compared to 61% of all mothers.

Yes, I never suggested that meeting some needs doesn't save the state money in the long term, this is very obvious. Not all needs though are in this category and not all needs are equally important in this regard. There are some specific, very expensive interventions that my disabled relative had that have made absolutely no impact on the costs associated with caring for him in the long term.

No, it doesn't need all carers to reach burn out to cost the state a lot of money, but equally the amount of support required to completely avoid this would be incredibly expensive and it would be hard to target this effectively. Ultimately the only way any of this is even semi sustainable is if families take on the bulk of caring for all our vulnerable. The minute we expect the state to do this and threaten burn out unless we are supported how we want then it all falls apart and the vulnerable will definitely not have any of their needs met. This is the problem with your argument, the assumption is that the state must step in and meet needs where families can't. This is only possible if the numbers don't escalate and the system doesn't become overwhelmed and unaffordable.

I was talking about at a population level, obviously, since policies are made at a population level and not at an individual level.

Some individuals not costing more is irrelevant if at a population levels not meeting needs costs the state more longer term.

Same for parents reaching carer burnout (and your use of threatening burn out shows you don’t understand the load parent carers are under). It doesn’t matter than some don’t reach parent carer burnout and making sure fewer do costs a lot. Not providing the support means more reach carer burnout and that costs more than providing support in the first place at a population level.

I don't think parents of disabled children should be given the 30 hours in cash instead but I do believe that carers allowance is a pittance and should be higher, especially if the child is eligible for higher rate DLA.

I also don't think it should be deducted from UC.

I don’t agree,

If you don’t work, you already get housing benefit and universal credit and DLA and carers allowance. Plus you get all the associated ‘free’ things - prescriptions, bus travel, clothing grant etc.

You also do get access to childcare (from 2 if you are not working)

But you want more money on top of this. You can be sure you that all the things I listed adds up to more than an average salary after tax/NI. Many people have shown the calculations on this website to prove it.

I am very much of the thought that you roll the dice having children and need to be prepared for anything that comes your way. It’s not on the government to pay you even more than was listed above.

How many of your children are disabled?

Housing benefit would only be if you weren’t a homeowner, then you wouldn’t be getting that.

I don’t get DLA, my son does. It’s in his name and it’s his benefit. It nowhere near covers the additional cost of his needs.

No, studies have never shown that meeting all needs of disabled children reduce long term costs to the state at a population level. They show that meeting key needs is important. The difference is important. Not all needs are equal drivers of long term costs at a population as well as at an individual level. We need to find a balance that is sustainable and effective.

Those carers that genuinely need specific support to avoid burnout should of course receive it. This certainly isn't every or most carers though. Many parents though want support in order to work and this is a very different proposition. The cost to the state of facilitating a parent to work is often much greater than any benefit the state gains from them working.

Why is that relevant? Do you think anyone without children can't have a view on education or Child Benefit? Do you think that anyone that isn't an immigrant can't have a view on immigration?