Single parenet benefits proposed to end when youngest child is 11 rahter than 16

[uwila]

Oh this will be popular round here.

here

I will clarify: leaving a 14 year old by themself every now and then, maybe a few times a week, if you trust them and you judge that they're responsible enough, is fine imo. Leaving them 5 times a week between the end of school and bedtime, is not active, responsible parenting imo. That's what this thread is talking about isn't it? As we're all supposed to have two jobs, one 9-5 and the other 6-2 and live on 3 hours sleep a night. (That episode of the Simpsons where Lisa gets a pony and Homer gets another job to pay for it springs to mind.) And we're all supposed to not find it terribly important that a teenager is left so unsupervised.

Honestly, everyone's terribly judgemental about teenagers being allowed to wander the streets, but leaving them at home unsupervised every day is fine. Why? Because they're not bothering the neighbours? Because they're not getting ASBO's? D'you really think they have to go out to do something disastrous? And btw, if you're at work and you don't have childcare, how do you know these 14 year olds are in the house anyway?

And please, if you're living on 3 hours sleep a night or some such risible scenario, you're obviously neglecting your own emotional needs, to say nothing of the physical and psychological ones, so how can you possibly be meeting a child's/ teenager's ones? And yes I'm sure the parents of twins don't get more than 3 hours a night for the first few months and maybe longer, but wtf has that got to do with single mothers working 16 hours a day? [rolls eyes]

This really has got down to the level of "look at them, they're wearing shoes, they'll be asking for golden elephants next".

"says she can't afford to pay the rent, but I notice she can afford to wear knickers".

It's almost surreal.

Pythonesque in fact

Ah Caligula, we've reached Python on the thread about organising your life!

Depends on the parent and child. My children's schools had lots of after school clubs, choirs etc adn they would often get home at 5.30pm or 6 and then do lome work and music practice so there really weren't huge loads of hours of them sitting around. The state school day seems ridiculously short these days as teachers rush off home as soon as they can instead of being expect to stay until 6 to do clubs, sports, music etc.

Which thread's that then?

Oh god.

Let's all start slagging off lazy indolent teachers as well shall we.

I think you'll find that most teachers are sitting there marking, planning lessons and filling in pointless bits of paper for Ofsted actually.

FFS Xenia. You really are on a roll.

"Going back to work: how do you cope, I can't even keep up with the washing" or something along those lines.
Just hearing on the news that Unicef are saying that British children have the worst quality of life in the Western world!

Hmmm interesting backtracking going on here..... the thing is, people will have different opinions about what is 'responsible parenting'. Some parents are quite happy, and in fact see it as essential to a teenagers emotional well being to TRUST them and to allow them some independence. Some parents are happy to entrust their child to a nursery/childminder/relative to do some of the caring. At the other extreme, I've known mothers who barely let their partner get a look in when it comes to parenting,and wouldn't dream of allowing anyone else the privilege. Surely this is not in the emotional interests of a child.I just think it requires a great deal of honesty about WHO we are actually doing the best for - is it our children or is it ourselves? My mother tried to convince us all that she was being a good mother by always being there, and foregoing any chance of building a meaningful career for herself (and this is an intelligent, capable woman with a degree). Sadly, I think I and my siblings would have been more self confident and had greater self esteem if she'd found a balance and hadn't been so AFRAID of giving us a little independence. Looking back, her decision to stay at home even when we were in our teens was about HER inability to let us go, not OUR needs. I'm not suggesting for a minute that parents should leave their teenagers home alone every night from the end of school until bedtime (9 or 10 pm?/!!!!- come on, you know the stuff about everyone having 2 jobs and working 16 hour days is tongue in cheek). But I think it's equally harmful for a parent to forego the opportunity to work just so that they can be at home every day when their teens arrive home from school I think it puts far too much emotional pressure on the young person. Surely the biggest gift we bestow on our children is to let them live their own lives,not try to live ours through them.

By the way, watch it Xenia - I'm a state school teacher. I have a lot of time for some of your views, but comments like that don't do you any favours. I worked in industry for many years before teaching - I did shorter days then and it was far less pressure. If you really believe state school teachers work a short day and do no extra curricular then you need to join the real world.

FFS there is absolutely no backtracking going on at all.

You know perfectly well that there is no such thing as widely available, flexible jobs where parents can juggle doing longer hours one day, shorter hours the next. The tone of this thread is that that's irrelevant, lone parents should just take what's available which is long hours, badly paid and no childcare, and the devil take the hindmost.

I don't think it's tongue in cheek at all. Just baiting. And tiresome.

Certainly wouldn't advocate taking any job no matter how crap.I'm not a lone parent and I wouldn't want to take a badly paid low status job, and certainly wouldn't herd lone parents together as if they're bound to fall into this category. I've worked hard over the years, in industry and now in teaching, and it just pisses me off that some people seem to think we need to make a special case for single parents and make out that they can't possibly be expected to set foot outside the house even when their children are at secondary school. It's patronising and demeaning to them. I know single parents who do the same job as me. They're energetic, feisty and setting a great example to their kids. And as for the childcare thing - how do you think us 2 parent working families have managed over the years? - you find the best you can afford (with or without tax credits help -haha joke- if you're 2 parents on average income you never get anything) and GET ON WITH IT. And my teenage children are fab - independent, caring, intelligent and certainly not emotionally neglected. End of!!

Caligula,
I don't think this thread is about leaving a 14 year old unsupervised from the time school gets of school until bed time. I'm thinking parents would be home for dinner time at the latest if they worked full time. I work 40-55 hours per week, and I'm home for dinner time. The kids eat before I get there because they are still young. But certainly when they are teenagers (and long before that) I will eat with them. You can work full time and be a responsible parent.

Xenia's point is interesting (although the implication that state teachers are lazy was a bit off). I have heard this before: that private schools do a better job of after school care / activities / etc. However, I assume this is because they have more money that state schools. And it isn't really relevant to this thread because a single parent on benefits is hardly going to be sending her/his kids to private school.

Where has anyone said that single parents shouldn't step foot outside of the house? People have simply pointed out the reality of what's on offer and suggested that perhaps if what was on offer was better, there wouldn't be this problem.

If you can't see why the emotional, material, psychological, social and economic situation is different for single parents and their children than it is for couples and their children, then I don't really think I can explain it to you. It's a bit like those childless people who can't understand why life is different when you are a parent. All of us know it is, but some people won't be told until they experience it for themselves. Some of us on this thread have been suggesting postive ways of ensuring that working life is more suited to all parents, rather than just bashing lone parents and churning out those tired old stereotypes of what a load of lazy loafers we are. But those people have not engaged with any of the positive arguments.

The Unicef report which has just come out is so aposite to this thread. I can't even be bothered to make the connections, but here is the BBC report on it.

Eleusis - I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

Yeah, Unicef report is a real eye opener and relevant to all society, whatever age group, regardless of whether people have their own children or not.It's about the collective responsibility of society. Don't see any specific relevance to any particular thread though. I think the general idea is that responsibility begins with the parents of each child (and as far as i'm aware all children start off with two parents) and that this responsibility broadens out in ever increasing circles through schools, communities etc.
OK, if you're a 2 parent family you're not able to exactly identify with what it's like to be a single parent, but equally I could say if you're a single parent you can't understand my situation - it's an utterly pointless argument FFS and just goes round in circles. The point I've tried to make all along is that it ISN'T helpful to lump people together in a narrow category. I have some teaching colleagues who are single parents- they work hard, support themselves, are interesting and vibrant people and are making a damn good job of raising lovely children. I also teach some pretty obnoxious emotionally deprived kids who have one or both parent at home all day not working.

Let us not forget I am a single parent and a very single one as their father is completely uninvolved practically or financially.

Yes, some single parents by the way pay for their children to board, not that I'm very in favour of boarding schools but raising £18k a year for that and then being free to work when they're away obviously makes the juggling easier. Others send them back to granny in Poland, Jamaica or wherever. Others find a man even so they are in a two parents situation again. I see labour is encouraging more parents to take up state boarding places which are not very expensive as you just pay for food not teaching so it's say £5k a year.

Also a few parents who can afford day school fees of £2k a term so choose private schools over state because they want a much longer school day, homework done before children come home, sometimes, music practice done at school so that their evenings as working parents are easier.

Except that most single parents have been part of couples NOB, so do have an insight into the difficulties faced by couples too (in fact in some instances, those difficulties were instrumental in their break-up).

As for lumping everyone together in a category, I think there's been masses of that on this thread - the any lone parent who isn't working in the cash economy is just sitting at home on their arses type comment.

You are an amazing woman Caligula, to keep ploughing away with this. I keep having to walk away!
Nosey, I am a feisty, working, single parent. I was married & now I'm not. My life is better emotionally because I am not being bullied by my ex-husband but logistically, financially & in almost every other conceivable practical way it is MUCH harder. My children were 3.5 and 9 months when ex-H bailed out & I've been on my own for the last 4 years.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that teenage children should be kept at home, but they do need parental input & supervision somewhere along the line.
We so desperately need to address childcare for children of all ages. It needs to be good & affordable for everyone. If the Unicef report doesn't hammer that home, I don't know what it does!

I thought we were trying to break them up. I had very much underclass on drugs, psychiatric problems, IQ of 80, drink issues,virtually no competent parenting, cycle of deprivation as my lowest.... and you get families like that for generation after generation. Then you get those on benefits for a fairly short period but back to full or part time work. Then those long term on benefits but perhaps very good mothers (or single fathers).

I would still like a principle that at least to show some gratitude to the state and appreciation of the money tax payers provide them they at least turn out every fortnight to sign in and think about jobs whatever category they are in and however unlikely given their personal profile, criminal record or even just deprived area they live in, they are to get a job when they turn up.

Bugsy I keep taking breaks!

Xenia, have you ever been to the flat of a genuine benefit claimant?
I certainly wouldn't feel gratitude, if I'd been to crap state schools, had no chance of any meaningful kind of employment & lived in a shithole, scrapping around to find money so they can put the heating on at bathtime.
People might be grateful, if they had access to decent childcare, a decent public transport infrastructure, affordable housing, a living wage, flexible employers, an equitable education system!

Ah you want gratitude and appreciation.

And signing a piece of paper every fortnight shows that, does it?

Your idealism is touching, X.

Hi NOB here (Love that!!!!) Yeah most single parents have been part of a couple at some point. And it the pressures of maintaining a life long relationship have contributed to the break up, then surely those single parents have some awareness that maybe those of us who stick together don't always find it easy!! I just think a lot of us are sick and tired of all these assumptions - that if you're a 2 parent family life is always a bed of roses, never a struggle financially or emotionally etc and that all 1 parent families have a dreadful life. As I said before, my own experience in teaching proves the opposite of that!! The danger with a report like the Unicef one is that some people will hijack it and use it to beat some sector of society with - eg must be the single parents at fault, must be the working mothers at fault, blah blah blah. It just isn't as simple as that. Surely the starting point is that at the moment of conception every child has 2 parents, and society should strive to enable those 2 parents to accept the life long responsibility to that child. All the rest - decent wages, affordable childcare follows on from that.

LOL of course people don't assume that being in a couple is a bed of roses. It's precisely because it can be so far from that, that some of us get out!

I don't think I disagree with anything you said in your last post NOB. But a lot of this thread isn't about how to make people responsible parents, it's simply repeating tired old stereotypes of single parents as not being responsible parents.

xenia-i do love the way you say 'find a man' as though its some sort of lifestyle chioceyes,there i was,having been a single parent for 3 years when i decided to improve my finacial situation,so i thought 'hmm,shall i get a job or find a man??'

NOB-im no longer a single parent,and tbh i dont find it makes any difference money-wise when you have to claim tax credits etc all you end up on is enough to live on(so if you're in debt you cant afford to live)which is hardly any different to being on benefits.the only way its easier being a 2 parent family is in a practical way,and that only applies if your oh is willing to do their fair share with childcre etc.

Caligula, I second Bugsy, you are amazing - it's like banging your head against a brick wall, isn't it?