Change in benefits for Lone Parents

[MsPontipine]

I went to my annual LP advisor meeting at the JobCentre today - was rather stunned by the proposed but very likely changes.

It was a bit much to take in but basically by 2010 I think lone parents with youngest child 12 or older will no longer be able to claim Income Support on LP grounds and will be required to sign on and claim Jobseekers Allowance and look for work.

Another couple of years and that age will be reduced to 7.

There are various incentives, grants etc but that appears to be the long and short of it.

I was pretty stunned - mostly I think because this is the first I've heard of this. I am not an avid news watcher but I'm not a complete ostrich.

Food for thought. . . . . .

Don't like this at all.

Why should I, a single parent since my ex walked out on us for a teenager three years ago, be forced to put my dd into childcare so that I can go out to earn a pittance and then come home to do the myriad of jobs that parenting entails - when ex is sat on his Playstation with a spliff, refusing to work despite having no other demands on his time and three dc needing his support.

How is that encouraging anyone to take responsibility for their children - I already do take that responsibility very seriously. I'm the one who stayed to look after my dd, rather than following my dick free spirited impulses and abandoning her.

I do the best I can for my dd. But IMO the best I can do for her is to be there, at home, until she is of an age where she can cope with looking after herself whilst I am working (11/12?) I want to HE her til then- not going to be possible if I am forced to work once she is 7.

I have the utmost respect for single parents who manage to combine work and home - but its not something I feel I can do. It should be a choice that is there for those who want it - backed up by childcare and in-work benefits that actually work (rather than the WTC fiasco). But it should not be compulsory, any more than SAHMs with a partner who works should be forced to go out to work.

Also would like to point out that my calculations show that if I were to work, I'd recieve more Government money to enable me to do so (CTC/WTC inc. childcare/Child Benefit, Housing Benefit) than I do as a single parent on benefits. So in a weird way, I cost the taxpayer less by staying at home.

I told my lone parent advisor that I felt guilty that i'd not be able to be as involved with Ds's school life, as I was with the dd's school life, if I were working, and he said 'oh well, thats just how it is, and employers are flexible nowadays you know'

The fact remains though, that I never intended to be a single mum, and I never intended to work (in the day at least) until they were all at secondary school. I like being here, available to go their plays and workshops, and don't see why ds should miss out on me doing that, just because me and his dad decided it wasn't working.

Stripey I have just had one of those calculations too...I would be getting a HUGE amount more from them if I went to work and bunged Ds into childcare. It's ridiculous...seems all about upping the employment figures, a childminder to do my job, and me out at work too.

I agree that it should not be more enforcable than married parents both having to work.

It isn't my child's fault that his dad left when I became pregnant, bullied me into not telling the government who he was, so he never has to pay a penny, and does whatever he likes while I work hard to raise my children alone.

Can't see a problem with expecting any parent to be in work by the time their child is 7. Children are in school for most of the day by this time, so childcare is only needed for before/after school and some holiday time (assuming annual leave is taken to cover some of it). Many couples both have to work from when their child is 6 months/a year old, so in a sense, single parents have an advantage if they can claim benefits until age 7. Certainly the idea of either DH or I staying at home til any of our kids were 7 would have been unthinkable - no way could we have afforded it! Stripeymama - what about couples who may think that the 'best' thing for one parent to be at home till the kids are 11/12???

Alfiesbabe I see what you're saying and that's fine if your children are at school, and you can find a job that allows you some flexibility in order to collect them at 3pm, and let you have unlimited time off for when one of them is sick...plus you have a husband around in the evenings to help do all the house stuff you haven't been there to do during the day...don't underestimate this.
To be at work from say 9 till 3 and then go to get the child(ren) and then go home and have to combine looking after them with everything else - shopping, cooking, washing, tidying up and bath time etc etc. would be a physical impossibility for a lot of us without someone around to watch the kids while you do some of that.
I imagine your DH helps with some of it?

Who is forcing my exp to work? He's sat on his bum now for two years and paid for nothing while ive gone to work and really struggled. If half these exes paid up many women wouldn't be entitled to benefits anyway.

Flight - am lol here at the idea of having a job that finishes at 3 pm. DH and I have never been able to pick our kids up from school!! It's a luxury we've never been able to afford. And I also don't know any couple who get unlimited time off for sick children!!
I don't want this to turn into a 'who has it hardest' thread, because that's pointless. I'm simply making the point that it's stupid to make a simple distinction between 'lone' parents and couples. Many couples have to work extremely long hours, and hardly get any time at all in the evening to see their kids, never mind worry about housework and shopping! Equally, there are lone parents who have oodles of family support, and in some cases they work things out sensibly with the ex partner so that both continue to have some responsibility for their child. eg a good friend of mine split with her partner, but he continues to take some of his leave during school hols (and why shouldnt he - he's their dad!!) so he has the kids then. She also has her parents living locally so they pick up her kids from school twice a week, and her mum even picks up shopping and stuff for her. You just can't draw a neat line and say 'all lone parents have it tough and all couples have it easy'.

i think its perfectly acceptable to support your own family when the child is 7. people cant expect to have children and be expected to be looked after forever.
many people struggle but somehow do it whatever the age of child. benefits should be a short term solution not a life choice.
if you are a lone parent then i think you should consider it very carefully before you have more children and cant support them yourself, why should everyone else pay for them?
it drastically cut birth rates in lone parents in the states when welfare would be paid to the first child only.

12 is a reasonable age I think but agree that childcare particularly during holidays is very difficult for this age group. If you can restrict your hours to 16 then it should be manageable. However I think the government have a rosetinted view of the availability of 'flexible' jobs/employers. Most I've encounter want their employees to be flexible but offer little in return.

"if you are a lone parent then I think you should consider it very carefully before you have more children and cant support them yourself, why should everyone else pay for them?"

How rude! Do you think we just sit here single, having one night stands and knocking babies out one after another?

When I had both of my kids I was not single and had a full time job. I was fully able to support both of them. Single does not equal stupid. There's plenty of reasons why relationships break down.

Ive been on benefit twice through no fault of my own and it is not easy to find another job. Easier if you're already in a job when your relationship breaks down. A lot of employers wont touch single mums with a barge pole. Where I work now they are reasonable about time off if one of the kids are ill and I (hope) ive been there long enough now for them to know I work hard and dont take the piss.

lba as you say you wernt single you were in a relationship and working, so whats the argument?

ahhh yes, the United States, centre of affluence, the country where nobody need go without

homeless children in cars

Let's do that here!!! Hooray!

Another British social problem solved by America, who obviously know how to do everything better than us, because they are bigger than us!

No argument. But you cant judge everyone's individual circumstances on the actions of a minority.

"if you are a lone parent then I think you should consider it very carefully before you have more children and cant support them yourself, why should everyone else pay for them?"

• can anyone explain what exactly is wrong with this statement? As hifi reiterated (as clearly some people couldn't read the statement first time round!) if you are in a relationship and working, then obviously the statement doesnt apply! If you are not in a relationship, and living on benefits, is it reasonable to intentionally have another child, knowing that you can't support it? Because there ARE some people who do this. Not many, but some. I've known one or two. And the point hifi made is that it ISN'T reasonable.

Actually, when I concieved my last child I wasn't single but I was by the time she was born. Bit too late to do anything about it then. By the time she was 6 months old I was also unemployed, not much one can do about redundancy either.

It was hard getting another job, no-one wanted to know. Almost every interview I had I was asked about my childcare arrangements/transport.

So LBA, you didnt intentionally conceive a child when single and on benefits. You seem to be taking this issue very personally,and I dont think hifi was making a personal judgement at all.
The bottom line is, it takes two to make a baby, and the parents should see their responsibility through to adulthood. Of course, real life gets in the way, and we all know it isnt as simple as that, but the principle of parents being responsible for their children should underpin any policy making. The welfare state is there to support people through situations where they can't support themselves - but it is not, or shouldn't be, an alternative way of living. That's not what it's designed for and it wouldnt be sustainable. That's why it seems perfectly logical that any parent should be expected to work by the time there child is 7. Yes, it may involve some compromise, like not always being able to pick your kids up from school, or not being able to spend every day of every school holiday with them 24/7 - but get over it - that's real life!

Im sorry, I haven't read the whole thread. Did someone say they were living on benefits and planning more children?

If not then I dont think the comment is relevant thats all.

My ds was planned. We were engaged, had a mortgage, jobs. It all went pear shaped. My ex does not work now. Why is this ok? Surely he should have to take some kind of responsibility too. The government can pay for him to sit around but i'd be "forced" to work. Why does this always come back to the resident parents who lets face it, are doing a hard enough job as it is.

Get over it, thats real life!

It is real life, which is not all black and white. Circumstances differ. People have tried to explain why its not always so easy to get back to work and you're not even trying to listen.

LBA - of course your ex should take joint responsibility for his kids! That's exactly the point I'm making. The govt shouldnt be paying any able bodies healthy adult to sit around FGS - mother or father!
No, I don't think any one has come on the thread and admitted to living on benefits as a lone parent and planning more kids - they probably wouldnt have the nerve! But several of us know people who have done exactly that. I know a woman who used to say quite openly that she loved babies and wanted to have as many as possible (though interestingly she wasnt as keen on them once they got older). She isnt in a relationship and is on her 5th child. I also had two students in my tutor group last year who now have a baby (they're now 17 and left school, no job between them) - she told me while she was pregnant that she had wanted the baby so they hadnt used a condom. So it does happen.

LBA - working when you have a family isnt always easy for anyone. I had to go back to work when my eldest was 3 months, as we couldnt afford the additional unpaid 3 months maternity leave. It wasnt easy expressing milk for feeds as I was still bf. It wasnt easy finding childcare. It wasnt easy finding suitable before and after school care once my kids got older and didnt like being with a CM but weren't old enough to be independent. None of it is easy, unless you're extremely rich and don't have to work, or you have absolutely watertight childcare systems which fall into your lap - eg a wonderful grandparent who will do all your childcare for you. And I don't know many people who fit into those last two categories. The point is - no one ever said having children would be easy!!

I know it happens. Im not disputing that. There's a woman across the road who constantly asks to borrow my phone, who used to ask me for nappies because they had none and then 5 minutes later she would come back from the off licence, mobile glued to her ear. That is the minority though. Most of us are not like that. People have very genuine reasons for having to claim, as I did.

There's a bigger picture here though. Tax credits for instance, are a huge problem. I know a lot of people have had trouble with them. From my own experience when I first got the job I have now I had to wait 3 months for tax credits. I was paying my nursery fees on my credit card (lucky that I had one, only because I was working before). The nursery would have told us to leave, as I would not have been able to pay them, and so I would have had to give up that job and go back onto benefit.

I got into a lot of trouble when I was working part time with the local authority because they just could not get my claim right, I ended up owing them hundreds from their overpayments. When I started full time I was so relieved that I wouldn't have to deal with them again.

As I said, employers need to change their attitude. A lone parent isn't necessarily going to be a problem, in fact, a lone parent may be more reliable than an 18 year old living with parents because we are the sole provider and cant afford to mess around.

Of course, its just my opinion but I do think so many would not need to be "forced" into work if the support we have in theory was actually put into practice.

Maybe it is the minority, but it's a minority that is costing the tax payer an awful lot of money, and, what's worse IMO,promoting a culture of dependency. It's a cycle isnt it? - the kids of the woman that you describe across the road are more likely to grow up to live on benefits themselves, because that's their role model day to day. They will expect to be able to afford the latest mobile, trips to the off licence and maybe smokes as well (the woman I knew with 5 kids interestingly could afford a big smoking habit on benefits ). Whereas if the mother was expected to work, the children would grow up seeing this as the norm. It isnt rocket science! I know there arent any simple answers, but my gut feeling is that the govt is right to tighten up overall. It's ridiculous that lone parents have been able to live on benefits long term even when their kids are teenagers!! It's not good for anyone - parent or kids. Most people if they are honest want their own kids to grow up to lead independent and worthwhile lives (I've yet to meet anyone who says they want their children to be unemployed) and a huge factor in this is what the parents do themselves. Children learn by example. I think a balance of carrot and stick is needed too - there should be incentives to get people back to work - ie people should always be significantly better off in work than out of it (and I mean significantly - not just 30 quid a week or so, but there should be a big gap between benefits and work so that people can see a measurable difference in their standard of living, otherwise I'm afraid its just too easy for people to opt out).

Hear hear LBA

How can you rely on money if they can stop it for the most arbitrary of reasons? If they decide you've been overpaid, they stop your tax credits, you can't pay your child carer, you have to quit work because you have no childcare, yet again your CV is going to look chronically unreliable.

HOw can the government stipulate 12 year olds as independent, when no child carers will take them, and the NSPCC says it's dangerous to leave them on their own? What are you supposed to do with them?

alfiesbabe unless you have walked in a lone parents shoes then you cant really rant, lone parents dont have the luxury of a partner bringing a wage hone, yes you might have had it tough having to go back to work but at least you had the option no too knowing your partner brings a wage packet home at the end of the month, I dont think there is any lone parent on here who dont want to work just that it isnt as easy as some people think to find the childcare or the hours they need.