"Single mothers with secondary school children should seek work" - BBC news this am.

[mumblechum]

What does everyone think? Apparently 70% of single parents already work, and a third of those who don't have a good reason not to, eg have a child with a disability.

My first response (have always worked at least pt) is "of course they should, the lazy buggers", but a 12 year old child can't really be left to fend for themselves EVERY day after school, can they, and I don't suppose you could get a childminder to look after them for just 1.5 hours a day.

My own experience is that my ds (year 7) does need a fair bit of tlc still, especially with all the upheaval of changing schools, more work, making new friends etc.

What do you reckon?

Again, personally, if people can afford to support their own decisions then it's noone's bloody business but their own, is it?

Quite.

well i already work but mainly because i rely on ds's grandad to pick him up from school.

i cant drive and when on benefit, didnt have the money to learn. there were no flexible hour jobs available to me near home. ds goes to a school two buses away as he got bullied at our local "rough and rubbish" school. five buses a day it would have taken me if i had to pick him up, and hours of travelling. even with him being picked up i cant work full time as i would have to collect his sister from nursery too.

i cant get to work before 9.30 and working full time, i wouldnt have been able to get back in time to pick dd up before the nursery closes at six. it was impossible in my case.

nursery places and childminders are hardly in abundance here.

i dont know how it will work out when ds goes to secondary next year. he's not emotionally mature enough to find his own way back and stay in the house on his own. im going to have to cross that bridge when i come to it.

when i was on benefit i never saw it as a lifestyle choice, ive always worked but if you get made redundant, well you claim, or be homeless. while i looked for another job i attended college and got some more qualifications. i never sat on my ass watching trisha for certain!

its bloody stupid

no one wants to be on benefits, not really. try it for a bit if you think its an easy life.

people with kids are stuck on benefits mainly because they cannot find suitable work that pays more than benefits.

Or in some cases because there is a psychological barrier, but here I think there is often also depression etc.

If the government wants to get single parents back into work it needs to actually tackle the issues they face.

It is VERY hard to negotiate child friendly part time hours in most jobs, and you have no legal right even to have your request taken seriously til you've been there a year. so what do your kids do til then ?

note, btw it will apply to parents of 7 yos from 2010. This is my big concern, not so much 12 yos

it is extremely hard trying to sort everything out. jobcentre lone parent advisors in my experience are patronising but helpful (mine was bloody great). but there is still so much to be done, so many phonecalls to make..and i already know how to find (attempt) childcare.

if you are lucky enough to get a job with decent hours, before you start you have to contact school to see if after school club, or get a list of childminders from local auhority, see if they have places or which childminder has places, if she does, will she pick up from your childs school blah blah blah...and all this when your new boss is asking when you can start! agree prices, times and then get back on to lone parent advisor to see if its actually worth your while.

then get back onto childcare, get contracts signed, get back to boss as to when you can start...on it goes. then 3 months later the IR stil havent paid your tax credits and you havent enough money to pay said childcare, or even eat.

lets not forget, some single parents dont have much contact with the child's family on dads side, so there's already potential grandparent help out of the window. if your own parents work, no grandparent help at all.

no wonder people are scared of going back to work.

Brummieontherun, of course work has to be the default option of every able-bodied and able-minded adult. But don't tell me that bringing up children isn't work. If it's worth paying for if a childminder or nanny or nursery or after school club does it, then it's work, right?

After school clubs are crap. They don't feed the children properly. I enquired at my DS's school, and they give them toast. That's not a proper meal. I suppose they're expecting you to feed 7 year olds a proper meal when you get them home at 6.30pm, half an hour before bedtime. Never mind that sleep deprivation is one of the major causes of bad behaviour in children.

Then they say they'll provide wraparound care from 8am to 6pm. Sorry, not long enough. If you live in the home counties and need to commute to London, you need 7am-7pm childcare. And sod your kid if s/he hates it.

And the Tories are now saying they want LP's with children of 5 and over working at least part time. Well I'd just love to see an expansion of the right to work part time, but are those bastards going to legislate so that LP's have the legal right to do their job part time? Are they heck as like.

All these demands that LP's work in the cash economy are reasonable if we had a proper transport system, proper quality childcare and the right to flexible hours. Without those, they're unreasonable. 70% of LP's with children over 11 already work. Most of the ones who don't, have numerous other problems apart from being LP's and probably wouldn't be working anyway. The amount of money they cost the tax payer, is minimal. This is a measure designed to play to the Daily Mail, just like the stupid cannabis re-classification thing, jsut like the super-casino announcement. It's getting the reactionary press on Gordon Brown's side. It's not based on evidence, research, or necessity. And long term it won't work, because the Daily Mail et al will always go back to their true love.

Parp.

Having always worked full time with a husband who has always worked full time - the conclusion I have come to is that it is a totally undesirable state of affairs. It's stress city.

My ideal of perfection would be for both oof us to have the opportunity to work part-time and flexibly. The world is not like that though. In my world, working part-time definitely signals a lack of commitment, perhaps an inability to cope with gruelling hours, impossible deadlines, billing targets, recovery rates blah blah ... I love my children much more than my office and I don't see anything like as much of them as I do of my office ...

So would I wish this upon anyone else? No. It really isn't an ideal lifestyle for anyone.

OMG LBLB, I didn't say looking after kids wasn't hard work! Jesus, I'm pulling my hair out trying to cope at the moment, and I have a partner. And I agree with pretty much everything you said.

But I hope I'm a pragmatist. You send mixed messages to a pretty poor management team, you get ignored as incompetent. And that's what us birds have been doing to the govt.

All I'm arguing for is better support, and for a wider spectrum of people. But something has to give, and i don't agree with an automatic long-term right to claim state support while rearing children if you don't have a partner.

Here's my question: if we stopped means-testing AND at the same time limited the timescales benefits were offered for, would we free up enough money to allow everyone short periods of good quality state support when it was needed (financial or housing or vocational or whatever) that actually changed peoples lives?

I'd like to qualify my comments from the viewpoint of a teenager if I can.

I bet 95% of teenage kids, boys in particular, offered the choice between staying in bed and doing bugger all but having a small (rather than decent) amount to live on, will vote with their short term lazy minds and stay in bed having a wank rather than go to work and do the sort of pretty menial jobs we all started with.

It takes a really impressive parent to fight that. My parents didn't manage it, and they are reasonably smart 'middle class' people.

The problem with providing a manageable level of income on a long-term basis with no string attached is that it can become a pretty attractive proposition... not for the parents who probably wouldn't agree it's manageable, but for the kids. They don't have a long-term viewpoint.

mine are nearly 11 (still primary for another year) and 14. I wouldnt have aproblem leaving my dd (14) for a few hours each day but none of her friends live locally. Also she doesnt want to be abandoned while i would go out to work.

Having read the thread now, just picking up on a few things:

Littlebella you say the after school clubs are crap where you live because they only feed the chidren toast. "I suppose they're expecting you to feed 7 year olds a proper meal when you get them home at 6.30pm, half an hour before bedtime never mind that sleep deprivation is one of the major causes of bad behaviour in children".

Well, ok, supper at 7 or later is not ideal, I suppose, but it's what we do with our 7 year old and with his older brother. Tbh I've never seen it as an insurmountable problem to me working and it's never caused huge problems at school. ds2 gets around 11 or more hours sleep and seems fine on this. Mind you, I don't have to wake him up for school till 8.00 am, as I do the school run in the morning. I am lucky that I work locally and have some flexibility. However, even if I had to get him up earlier, getting home from a playclub at 6.30 for supper followed by an 8 - 8 30 bedtime is not too difficult, I'd have thought? Stressful yes, but not impossible.

Also, our after school club allow children to bring in sandwiches/fruit for their tea. We do this, so ds can have healthier, more substantial food. It would be worth asking your after school club if they would allow this. IME many clubs are fine about this, you just have to ask.

As for older children feeling abandoned if you go out to work - doesn't it depend on what they can do when you are not there and (a bit) on how you as a parent present the option to them? If you are negative about it, then it' easier for them to be negative, too.

Again I can only speak from my own experience but my 13 year old son now actively finds out about couses he wants to do while I am at work. Yesterday he presented me with an application form for a cricket course that he had already filled and just wanted me to pay for! Both my sons actually prefer to go on courses and playclubs during some of the school holidays. We've talked about this a lot and they'd honestly rather do the stuff they like than than have me around with them for six weeks constantly at home.

I know all parents and children are different. A good friend of mine has just handed in her notice because her employer for the first time ever wants her to work two weeks of the school holidays. She totally objects to this, even though her children are aged 11 and 14. Her job is a good, well paid, part time one, in an area where jobs are hard to come by but she is willing to sacrifice this. She asked for my opinion as I have always worked for some of the holidays. I tried to show her that IME playclubs and holiday courses are not terrible things to inflict on children, but for her it is an unthinkable intrusion into her family life. Fair enough. It's none of my business anyway

maisym strictly speaking home schooling isn't a legal option here in Germany but some people are fighting for the right to educate their kids at home and although their cases haven't been through every instance, they've come to some kind of an arrangement with their LEA whereby they meet with a teacher regularly who monitors what is done. TBH I think CONTROL is a big issue in Germany because they like things to be done just right (once they've decided what that is) and I think the authorities are just uneasy with everyone doing their own thing at home IYSWIM.

Personally though I would rather live in a country that errs on the side of generosity in benefit cases than the opposite.

The way things are shaping up, Europe generally is cracking down on benefits and reducing entitlements wherever possible. Think too at the moment a LP in the UK can be thankful they live there even if it means having to work full-time when their dc are 12 or even 7. Things are tougher elsewhere honestly.

You know I was thinking too about a friend of mine who is a LP on benefits in Germany, her ds is 7 and she has to work 42 hours a week in unpaid work otherwise her benefits would be cut. And she has to work REALLY hard too. It's not some cushy job or anything. It's very hard for her to juggle. She has to leave him alone at home a lot. - Even now in the school holidays because she has to work right through. She is only entitled to 12 days holiday from this work scheme p.a. Imagine that.

Oh Ssandy that is so sad. I think that would probably be illegal in Britain actually, to regularly leave a 7 year old on their own. Poor little boy, where do his needs come into it?

Tigermoth, you are lucky. If my DS (8) doesn't get 12 hours sleep, he is a monster. If it happens more than one night in a row, he is an uber-monster. I don't agree that it's how you present after school clubs either tbh - I brightly suggested to my DS that he go to after school club as they do such fun things there, and he is appalled and horrified. So i'm having to send him to his childminder who is much more expensive, but heyho, at least he gets a proper meal.

I do think there's a difference between 8 year olds and 13 year olds as well, and the proposals are for when children are 7 after 2010, and the Tories, family values and all, are saying 5. I also think it very much depends on when the break up in the family took place - a 9 year old who has not lived with his father since he was 2 might be far more emotionally resilient and able to be left than a 14 year old whose parents have just been through a break up.

I just hate this pretence that there's a massive problem of Lone Parents skiving. There are 1.9 million lone parents in Britain, only 150,000 of whom have a youngest child aged over 11 and are claiming Income Support. Fewer than 8%. So why all the harassment?

SSSandy I do agree with you about erring on the side of generosity. I do think there is an issue with the benefit system in that the people who are in genuine need are not always properly provided for and that some undeserving people milk it - I am NOT referring to lone parents. I would not be happy abput forcing lone parents of 7yr olds into full-time work.

Littlebella, I agree with you that forcing all lone parents to go back to work when their youngest child is 7 is harsh and unrealistic - encouraging training or part time work (if available) is a good idea, but no general hounding of all LPs into full time work. As others have said, there's a shortage of flexible, family friendly jobs and affordable, realistic childcare options.

However I feel that when you have a 12 year old, things are different (for most lone parents though of course there will always be exceptions).

Littlebella, you said "I don't agree that it's how you present after school clubs " and then go on to say how much your 7 year old wants to stay with his childminder instead..

For the sake of accuracy, I clearly said
"As for older children feeling abandoned if you go out to work - doesn't it depend on what they can do when you are not there and (a bit) on how you as a parent present the option to them? If you are negative about it, then it's easier for them to be negative, too."

I fully realise children of seven years are more likely to be dependent on their parents, but this is generally less true of a 12 year old or teenager IMO.

Is there any chance that we could avoid using words like 'abandoned' in relation to children who have alternative carers because they have mothers who work? I find it really offensive.

sazzybee, if you mean my post, it was originally in reply to jammypotter's message(and not to do with alternative carers FWIW) 'Abandoned' is not a word I like in that context either.

"Most working parents - single or not - would like to spend more time with their children"

Yes indeed. But DH and I have worked ever since our eldest was born. Never had a choice TBH. So do most single parents that I know in one way or another well before their DC's were 12.

sorry tigermoth - wasn't being clear. I was referring to jammypotter's post: I wouldnt have a problem leaving my dd (14) for a few hours each day but none of her friends live locally. Also she doesnt want to be abandoned while i would go out to work.

I just don't like the use of the word abandoned. It seems unnecessarily emotive and not all of us are lucky enough to be able to be SAHMs (can you guess that I'm not one of them? )

Thing is, abandoned is the way some children feel in some circumstances. I'm sorry to be brutal about it, but children of lone parents are more likely to be feeling abandoned than the average. For some of them, whatever we do to alleviate the disruption, that is how they perceive one of their parents leaving the family home.

Which is why although I agree with you in general Tigermoth, I think one needs to be very careful about having a blanket assumption that a 13 year old is more able to cope with being sent to a childminder/ after school club than a 7 year old. If the 13 year old in question, has just gone through his parent's horrible divorce, it may be a real, significant psychological problem for him in the way it might not be for an emotionally resilient kid with a stable family background. I cannot see any moral (or even economic) justification for the state putting pressure on mothers to do something that they know may be fundamentally damaging to their child.

And that's what should be at the heart of this type of debate - what effect it will have on the children and therefore on the mental health of the next generation of adults.

And no one is saying that you can't stay home and support your child in those circumstances littlebellatrix. Just that the state shouldn't necessarily have to pay for it.

Shame on the government to target single parents in this way. Most of the single parents I know already work twice as hard as me bringing up their children alone. If its a financial and logistical nightmare to work when you are two parents, it sure must be close to impossible if you are a single mum. I think the government should present parents with brilliant and cheap after-school clubs, holiday clubs, legislate properly for flexible and part-time working and then they can tell people to go out to work. I am very pro work for all parents, but I think its near impossible in this country at the moment.

I agree, FM, and see this as just more of the rampant misogyny and demonisation of women and children.

Why aren't we seeing an equally harsh drive to force absent parents to pay maintenance for their children?

Sazzybee if the mother doesn't have a private income, a flexible part time job or a generous benefactor, then who else will pay for it but the state? I'm racking my brain to find another party (the children's father? pull the other one), but sadly can't come up with any more.

150,000 lone parents have children over 11 and claim income support. There are 1.9 million lone parents in this country.

Are they really bleeding the country dry?