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
News
Original poster

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

209 replies

mumblechum · 18/07/2007 08:28

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?

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 19/07/2007 22:16

The woman?

Sorry, but I do NOT buy all this scape-goating single mothers until there're equal measures put in place to compel absent parents to pay maintenance for their children.

FairyMum · 19/07/2007 22:16

Then noone would have children Bubble99......
Your circumstances can change from one day to another.....

Bubble99 · 19/07/2007 22:19

Change of circumstance is a totally different thing to not being able to provide in the first place though, isn't it?

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 19/07/2007 22:19

Tell that to the fathers Bubble

Funny how it all comes down to the mothers.

PG the average period (not age) of being a lp is 5 years. In other words, some women are only a LP for a year before they meet someone else (and therefore are not entitled to benefits anyway) others for 10 years etc. The average settles at 5 years. (dammit I've gone way past the average.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 19/07/2007 22:21

Bubble, the majority of women have children in circumstances where they think they can provide for them (or they are with a man whom they think will provide for them).

There is a tiny minority who don't. But they are not representative of lone parents as a whole.

Bubble99 · 19/07/2007 22:21

I think I covered that in the 'financially convoluted divorces bit?'

OK, add 'non-paying partners.'

Either gender, of course.

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:23

If it's only five years, then that should be ample time to get out to work before they reach secondary school age.

Agree that it shouldn't be just targeted at single mothers, but given that the children stay with their mothers in the overwhelming majority of cases, I guess it's appropriate. It's also appropriate that fathers pay towards their children's maintenace, without a shadow of a dobt.

FairyMum · 19/07/2007 22:26

I don't think anyone truly know the cost and low availability of good nurseries or the problems you can face in the workp[lace if you try to leave on time from work to spend some time with your children. I have 2 friends who have recently given up work purely because they could not take the digs from colleagues about their "part time" hours at work anymore.You don't know how much children can get sick, how long the school holidays are, there are very few after-school clubs......No, you just don't know these things before you have children and thats a good thing for the borth rate I think!

Bubble99 · 19/07/2007 22:26

I think the govt was wrong to use the term 'single mothers' in this proposed policy.

I think there is as much, if not more, a case to target families were neither partner works.

I also think the stats saying that the UK has the highest amount of single parents is a red herring, too.

We have an insane system whereby to qualify for housing and benefits many couples have to officially 'split.'

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 19/07/2007 22:28

I love the casual throwing in of non-paying partners, as if it is an afterthought. It's a major factor in why LP's are disproportionately dependent on the state.

It's not just non-paying, it's the fact that the payments are a joke. My xp pays me £5 per week for both children. Apparantly that's quite common.

But no-one is talking about hounding him (except Expat )

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:29

There was an article recently about the number of hours a married person on the minimum wage would have to work to earn the same as a lone parent with the various benefits. It worked out at something like 120 hours - appalling state of affairs.

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:30

Little - why don't you challenge the low maintenance payment?

Bubble99 · 19/07/2007 22:31

Who set the rate at £5?

Can money be deducted from a non-paying partners salary at source?

expatinscotland · 19/07/2007 22:31

that's assuming hte absent parent has a job.

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:33

If they haven't, it's about time they did

Bubble99 · 19/07/2007 22:33

If not, expat, the absent parent should then lose all of their benefits which should then be paid to their children.

And get a job.

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:33

Sorry - hit the post button too early - meant to say unless they are unable to work through disability.

expatinscotland · 19/07/2007 22:34

Exactly, paolo, which is why there should be an equally aggressive drive to chase up absent parents and compel them to pay maintenance.

UCM · 19/07/2007 22:35

Ok, I think that there are some women who are just so used to being on benefits that they can't see anything better anymore. I know a few people who have done this and eventually they all end up at the Drs with depression because they are broke and bored, so I do agree with everyone doing something even if it's voluntary as it increases self esteem to an extent. As for absent fathers I have too many good friends whose wanker ex partners & husbands don't pay their way and it makes my fucking blood boil. Whats worse is that if you (the lone parent) work and don't depend on benefits, the CSA or whatever it's called today don't even bother chasing up the bloke. It's all wrong.

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:36

Totally agree, expat. It shouldn't be taken in isolation. Work for both parents, plus appropriate maintenance levels in all cases, unless disability completely prevents you from doing any kind of work.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 19/07/2007 22:37

pg, it took me 4 years to get just that amount!

And honestly, it was a huge amount of work, time, letters to the CSA and the involvement of my local MP.

I've just run out of energy on that one. The only reason I ever pursued it was because of the principle really, not the money, I just wanted to be able to my children "your father was very poor but he did pay something regularly for you every month" so that they know he supported them. It's more the symbolism for them than the actual money tbh.

UCM · 19/07/2007 22:38

And just to bang on and on, I know, as I am sure most people do, a couple who are on benefits with one child. The partner gets more than most as he is on the 'sick' with a bad back but works cash in hand. I know I should report them, but who would I hurt. Would it be their child or my friend.

The system is terribly fucked up as if he was having to do something during the hours of 9 and 5 he wouldn't be able to take on the cash job.

paolosgirl · 19/07/2007 22:42

How on EARTH did he geet away with £5?? What was his excuse?

If it's any consolation, DH had a client at work - a complete prat, who was self employed and earned huge money, but had structured things so he was only paying a fraction of what he should to his ex-wife and children. DH got so sick of hearing him gloat about it, that he shopped him to the CSA, and he had to pay up. Somewhere there is a woman who is now getting what she and her children deserve.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 19/07/2007 22:43

UCM, that is why the current system for LP's is so much better. I recently discovered that I could work one day a week and still get income support and CTC. OK, I wouldn't get WTC, but I would still be significantly better off than on benefits.

Work should always pay. Any benefit system which penalises work, is bad. OK, I know the tax payer shouldn't subsidise low-paying employers either, but I can understand that someone who genuinely does have a bad back but isn't ill enough to be a total invalid, finds it easier to cheat than to work to the level he is physically able to. I imagine there must be quite a few people who are quite well enough to do a 2 or 3 day job, but would be worse off working than on benefits, unless they did a 5 day job which they're not up to. I would rather subsidise them to work 3 days, than to not be allowed to work at all.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 19/07/2007 22:46

PG, I'm not sure - I think he must be back on IS or something (the reason he managed to get away with non-payment for as long as he did despite my pit-bull-terrier-like approach to the CSA, was because he job-benefit hopped. IE he would take a job for 3 months, then go back on JSA for six months, then take another job for 3 months, then back on JSA for six months, etc. By the time the CSA had caught up with him, he'd moved on. Each time he signed back on for JSA, it was a new case with a new number, so new procedures.... etc. etc.)

Anyway, he must have stopped running now for a bit. I've run him to ground.