Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

DM is homeless and penniless

578 replies

Pottlee · 31/12/2023 13:29

I don’t know where to post this really, so apologies if it’s the wrong place.

My mum has been carer for her mum for maybe 5 years. Grandmother has now sadly passed away. Inheritance wise she has left a small amount behind, which is split between her two 60 ish year old ‘children’ (my mum and my uncle) - around £5-10k each. Mum and her brother have a fractured relationship but showed themselves to get on for the sake of their mum. Not sure it’s going to be as hunkydory now their mother has passed.

Now to the main point - my mum has nothing, like nothing to her name. She has no home (lived with her mum as carer), no money (other than the small inheritance) and no income at all. She has never worked so had made no contributions. She also had never claimed any benefits. The home she lived in with her mother will be sold and that money will go to an equity release company and to pay off a load of other debts.
What on earth happens to her now?
My uncle says she’s my responsibility now, but I would hate for that to be the case in that I don’t have room for her to live at my house, and harsh as it sounds I don’t want to become responsible for her for the rest of her life - hats off to everyone who can do it, but the idea of me having to care for her the way that she cared for her mum is just a no I’m afraid. We are close in a way but don’t get on in another. I couldn’t live with her. It would make my life unbearable and no doubt spell the end of my marriage because my DH couldn’t tolerate her daily either. My 2 DC love her but daily it would be disastrous. She is very lazy, judgemental, negative and nasty. And as I said would be able to make very little/no financial contribution.

So 1. Is she really regarded my responsibility now? 2. What should she do with regards of somewhere to live (she has no money for that) and income for the rest of her life? Is she not entitled to anything as she’s made no contributions or claimed anything at any point?

I’m aware I may come across as heartless because I don’t want to take her on so to speak, but I do want to help her set herself up somehow if she can. I’m just not in a position to be able to offer a place to live or financially.

please if anyone can advise who she can speak to or what she can do. Thank you.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
RainyDaysSundays · 31/12/2023 20:30

I posted upthread that in 1985 only 29% of women had full time jobs.

Do link to that.

Part time could mean (in teaching) 4 days or even 4.5 days in a week. And similarly for any job.

The argument swirling around here is more like it was the 1920s-40s when married women had to stop work (on marriage) in some professions.

If it's true, it's because housing was cheaper and many families could buy on one salary. I worked part time because there were no nurseries for my DCs until they were aged 4.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:31

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:26

Teaching has long had a disproportionately high number of women, it was one of the few jobs women could get into when recruitment was so sexist. Nursing of course, and secretarial.

I posted upthread that in 1985 only 29% of women had full time jobs.

Show quote history

I started my traineeship as a solicitor in 1981 with a local authority. Around half the qualified solicitors in the legal team were female. There weren't many female partners in private practice at that time but below partner level there were significant numbers of women. My year at university was certainly 50% female.

Luddite26 · 31/12/2023 20:32

I did wonder earlier if there is a North/South difference here.

DirectionToPerfection · 31/12/2023 20:32

Maicon · 31/12/2023 20:28

The idea that a woman with no work history in her 60s is suddenly going to be employable is laughable at best. She's spent her whole life caring for people. And now she's going on the garbage heap.

Her whole life, really?

Sounds like she had OP in her late teens or early twenties. What was she doing in her thirties and forties?

She has only been caring for her mother for five years.

She moved abroad for years (not with OP) and sponged off her partner. That's not 'caring.'

Seems her main concern all her life was having someone to fund her.

Reality has hit now.

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:32

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:26

Honestly what planet are some posters on?

I was at school from 1964 to 1977. My female teachers were a mixture of single and married women. Some of them had children at the school when I was there. My mother worked full time, the majority of my friends' mothers worked.

Show quote history

I keep posting the stats - whatever your anecdotal experience, only 29% of women worked fulltime in 1985.

You can't extrapolate from teaching to the workforce as a whole - when the world was sexist, it was one of the few things an educated woman could do!

Lookingatthesunset · 31/12/2023 20:32

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:30

Some women have worked fulltime in every generation. The fact you graduated as a woman in 1985 makes you an outlier from the off.

The point is only 29% worked full time in 1985 - people keep talking as though the fact they had lots of female teachers means the workforce as a whole was full of women.

Show quote history

I don't think it does!

Luddite26 · 31/12/2023 20:33

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:31

I started my traineeship as a solicitor in 1981 with a local authority. Around half the qualified solicitors in the legal team were female. There weren't many female partners in private practice at that time but below partner level there were significant numbers of women. My year at university was certainly 50% female.

Show quote history

And did you all have young children at that time? And what did you all do for childcare?

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:33

Luddite26 · 31/12/2023 20:32

I did wonder earlier if there is a North/South difference here.

I'm in Scotland. Middle class farming background. 2nd generation university educated.

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:33

RainyDaysSundays · 31/12/2023 20:30

I posted upthread that in 1985 only 29% of women had full time jobs.

Do link to that.

Part time could mean (in teaching) 4 days or even 4.5 days in a week. And similarly for any job.

The argument swirling around here is more like it was the 1920s-40s when married women had to stop work (on marriage) in some professions.

If it's true, it's because housing was cheaper and many families could buy on one salary. I worked part time because there were no nurseries for my DCs until they were aged 4.

I linked it upthread!

CanImakethisbetter · 31/12/2023 20:35

Maicon · 31/12/2023 20:28

The idea that a woman with no work history in her 60s is suddenly going to be employable is laughable at best. She's spent her whole life caring for people. And now she's going on the garbage heap.

Her whole life?

Lookingatthesunset · 31/12/2023 20:35

I worked in what was then a Big Five management consultancy/accountancy firm in the late 80s/early 90s in London. Looking back it was probably quite equally based in terms of gender, but there were very few working mums.

I graduated in Arts, and it was predominantly female.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:36

Luddite26 · 31/12/2023 20:33

And did you all have young children at that time? And what did you all do for childcare?

Show quote history

I'm 4 years older than OP's mother. It was expected in my generation that you went back to work. My son was born in 1990. I went back to work full time. Childcare existed. I had a nanny but haven't you heard of childminders and nurseries?

Luddite26 · 31/12/2023 20:36

My mum went to a school in the 50s/60s and all the teachers were Nuns. Not one of them had a child whatsoever.

Lookingatthesunset · 31/12/2023 20:36

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:32

I keep posting the stats - whatever your anecdotal experience, only 29% of women worked fulltime in 1985.

You can't extrapolate from teaching to the workforce as a whole - when the world was sexist, it was one of the few things an educated woman could do!

Show quote history

I don't know where you got those stats, but it doesn't tally with my life experience.

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:37

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:31

I started my traineeship as a solicitor in 1981 with a local authority. Around half the qualified solicitors in the legal team were female. There weren't many female partners in private practice at that time but below partner level there were significant numbers of women. My year at university was certainly 50% female.

Show quote history

This thread is so weird.

We all know that women have always worked, but we also know that as you go back through the decades it was more common statistically for a woman not to work.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:37

Lookingatthesunset · 31/12/2023 20:36

I don't know where you got those stats, but it doesn't tally with my life experience.

Show quote history

Nor mine.

MrsTerryPratchett · 31/12/2023 20:37

The point is only 29% worked full time in 1985 - people keep talking as though the fact they had lots of female teachers means the workforce as a whole was full of women.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

That percentage would have included women from generations before, who were 40 or 50 in 1985, almost 80 or 90 now. Many of them wouldn't have worked. What you want to actually compare with OP's mum is the proportion of YOUNG women who were working, which would have been much higher. I'm in my 50s and all my contemporaries worked. Not one was a housewife who never went back to work.

I only know one now and she's in some weird tradwife set-up I try not to think about. And even she worked before kids.

greengreengrass25 · 31/12/2023 20:39

Come to think of it quite a few people had au pairs in the 70s and 80s

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:39

Lookingatthesunset · 31/12/2023 20:36

I don't know where you got those stats, but it doesn't tally with my life experience.

Show quote history

This is a very funny post Grin

Lots of people worked part time too, of course, but not the OP's mum.

Luddite26 · 31/12/2023 20:42

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/12/2023 20:36

I'm 4 years older than OP's mother. It was expected in my generation that you went back to work. My son was born in 1990. I went back to work full time. Childcare existed. I had a nanny but haven't you heard of childminders and nurseries?

Show quote history

"I had a nanny." 😂
Have I heard of childminders and nurseries? I think there is a massive difference between well educated women with careers working and affording childcare and women working in lower paid jobs fitting it in with husbands shifts or family helping out.

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:45

MrsTerryPratchett · 31/12/2023 20:37

The point is only 29% worked full time in 1985 - people keep talking as though the fact they had lots of female teachers means the workforce as a whole was full of women.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

That percentage would have included women from generations before, who were 40 or 50 in 1985, almost 80 or 90 now. Many of them wouldn't have worked. What you want to actually compare with OP's mum is the proportion of YOUNG women who were working, which would have been much higher. I'm in my 50s and all my contemporaries worked. Not one was a housewife who never went back to work.

I only know one now and she's in some weird tradwife set-up I try not to think about. And even she worked before kids.

Yes, this I accept is relevant, as it covers working age women.

But also loads of women even now leave when they have children, for a time.

Maybe these stats feel more aligned to my experience - I knew loads of people with long-term SAHMs.

AshleyBlue · 31/12/2023 20:45

She wouldn’t work as a carer looking after someone else, she only did it for my grandmother because she was her mother. I agree it would be ideal if she would but I know for a fact she would

If the jobcentre deem it a suitable job for her to apply for (even if they're wrong because she won't pass security checks) then she'll be expected to apply for these jobs. She won't have a choice, unless she can find enough other types of job to apply for. Even then after a while, if her experience is in caring and she isn't getting other jobs, they'll expect her to apply for caring roles. I imagine this is why she wants you or her brother to take her in, she doesn't want to be at risk of losing her income and ending up on the streets, which is where the landlord will put her if she defaults on the rent. If I was you, I wouldn't take her in for even one night. I think if you do you'll be stuck with her OP, by your own conscience.

Also, for everyone saying she should get a job at in her early 60's, please do tell me where from and not "waitress, supermarket, carer" show me job adverts where quals and real experience arent needed. Carer for a relative at home, doesnt make you qualified.

Everyone knows this but it doesn't change the fact that if you've got no circumstances that make you officially incapable of work, then to claim UC you have to look for work. If you don't get a job that's fine, as long as you're spending enough time looking, applying and aren't turning down jobs or interviews. The jobcentres answer to being underqualified is apply anyway you might get lucky.

any chance was she put on the equity release with her mother? The reason I ask is that (again, in the US) if a person is on the reverse mortgage with the primary 'borrower' in most cases the house can't be sold until they also die or move out.

This is interesting I didn't know this. It could possibly solve the housing issue if so. Although as she wouldn't be able to afford repairs on her benefits and utilities and council tax could be large, she'd probably be better off in a rented flat if she can get a nice one with a housing association.

SutWytTi · 31/12/2023 20:48

greengreengrass25 · 31/12/2023 20:39

Come to think of it quite a few people had au pairs in the 70s and 80s

Quite a few?

It was surely very small numbers at population level.

Ap24 · 31/12/2023 20:50

Regardless of whether the OPs mother could have worked, was a SAHP etc doesn't matter though. She had one child, she could have worked part-time once the OP went to school. And what about the rest of her life? She made some incredibly bad choices and didn't think about her future at all. She's not a victim. And yes it sounds like she will get an awful retirement but it sounds like the majority of her life has been a big early retirement.

greengreengrass25 · 31/12/2023 20:51

Possibly

I think neighbours used to help each other out and perhaps families were more local

Swipe left for the next trending thread