Stay at home mums on benefits

[Jenny2998]

I am 21,single, and am currently bringing up my 2 children ( 8months, and 3 years) on benefits.

I made the decision to be at home with my kids because i feel it is incredibly important during the first years of their lives.

i don't like being on benefit, but currently cannot find any way around it - i have been trying unsuccessfully to find work at home for the past 3 years. i am keen to become a childminder so that i can support my family, but in the flat we live in at the moment that is just not possble.

so, until the situation changes one way or another i will remain on benefits. The most important thing to me is my children, and i am all too aware that if i did choose to go out to work and miss out on their childhoods, that i would never get this time back.

so, am i to be condemned as a scrounger just because i want the best for my kids? what are your thoughts?

Lizzer, I just read your first message carefully (as opposed to skimming as I usually do); I think you can be very proud of yourself and, far from looking down on you when she gets older, I think your daughter will be very proud of you too. You are a brilliant role model for her already and I hope your degree and teacher training go really well (and really quickly!) (I bet you'll be a great teacher too.)

I think there are 2 big issues here. One is that however good and competent and kind a childminder may be, she's never going to care about someone else's child the way its mother will, and if children grow up feeling secure and loved they are less likely to behave badly when they're older - so surely it's worth it to society to help mothers financially to stay with their children as long as they can.

So therefore if mum works child won't feel secure? The cheek of some people to earn a living.

I remember this one woman who was going on about this in the run up to the General Election. She was going to vote Tory she said "because they won't make her get a job" and it was "bad enough that her son had no father without him losing his mother as well."

What a cretinous statement.

Jbr, don't you only work part-time? Why?

I think a lot of the time this kind of discussion overlooks equality of opportunity issues. I know we're all adults at the end of the day and, as such, have to take responsibility for ourselves and our children. But we've all got personal and social baggage that influence our actions and decisions. I get the impression that quite a lot of Mumsnet contributers have highish disposable incomes and are well educated, with high expectations for themselves and their families. Obviously these factors make more choices possible.
I'm doing occasional childminding for the baby of a young girl about to leave care at the moment and believe me she just doesn't have that many choices. She's in a hostel, on benefits, with no support other than her social worker. Her education has been patchy and people don't expect much of her as far as I can see, or recognise her strengths- and there are many, not least the fact that she has a fantastic relationship with her baby. She feels very stigmatised and isolated. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this kid is still on benefits when her baby is in full-time school or, indeed, if her baby has a couple of siblings by then. Life thus far has taught her that things happen TO her and can't be controlled BY her. It seems like her parents and the care system have failed her badly.
Given all this, I think she's doing well to be nurturing her child at all- it's not something she ever experienced herself. Hopefully she'll be able to carve out a good life for herself and her child but it's far from a level playing field out there and she has a huge mountain to climb. I don't think it's a mountain of her own making.

Jenny, Lizzer good luck to you both, surely whats important here is that we are all trying to do whats best for our children whether that means working full/part time, going to college or staying at home with them.

Janh I must admit I find it irritating when you disparage childminding and give the impression its OK for these benefit mums to turn down work, because its better that they are at home for their (not pre-school) kids. So where does that leave the rest of us? we all scrimp and work hard and have to make compromises, why should benefit/single mums be different?? How about we all pack in our jobs and get subsidised from the state so we could see more of our kids too?

and, I would hope that most people are enightened enough to know the difference between those mothers that need our support and those that are taking advantage. I know I am. I'm certainly not saying that anyone should have to have an abortion, or isn't allowed to make mistakes (including my theoretical teenage daughter), but they aren't the ones that are taking advantage. Its the mothers that get support from the state for the first child, but then go on to have more knowing the state will have to support them until they are 16. And this is the majority. What's wrong with society and the government encouraging a little less selfishness???

Look at what scummymumm wrote, you have complete sympathy for this woman who has had a tough life until you read "indeed, if her baby has a couple of siblings by then". Why is it OK that nothing is done to discourage additional reliance on the state?

JanH, I can't agree entirely with your following comment, to quote:

"... however good and competent and kind a childminder may be, she's never going to care about someone else's child the way its mother will, and if children grow up feeling secure and loved they are less likely to behave badly when they're older - so surely it's worth it to society to help mothers financially to stay with their children as long as they can".

I agree with you that the government should make it more that possible for every single parent to be able to stay at home with their baby and nursery-aged children. And of course, it's a major plus for babies and very young children to be able to form strong bonds with their parent -and for the parent to feel supported financially.

BUT, IMO the government should ALSO support single parents with sufficient childcare/nursery places and funding etc if they choose to work or study. Lots of single parents are in their teens and twenties. They have their own future to think about as well. And if they can progress with a career, it's going to help both parent and child in the long run, benefit policy permitting, and get them out of the poverty trap. Also, IMO it's not doing the child any favours if, as they grow up, they see their parent jobless, untrained and without prospects. How will that affect their motivation at school? OK, it could spur them on to do better in some cases, but surely it's also good for them to see their parent - the main adult influence in their lives - managing to achieve a better life for themselves?

Also, I personally don't think a child at a nursery or at a childminders is, per se, more likely to grow up insecure and badly behaved. Doesn't it also depend on the standard of care? And is a stressed, depressed, young and inexperienced single parent, per se, going to ensure that their child will grow up secure and well behaved?

JanH, I don't know if you really think that society should enable single parents to stay with their children up to the age of, say, 16 years, because it's best in the long term. I don't want to make assumptions on this. But can I just make the point that many of societies high achievers have had a boarding school background?
To many, a boarding school, ie no parent 'being there' every day, is seen to offer the best start in life for school-aged children.

I really don't feel that single parents of older children can expect the same level of government commitment to their choice to stay at home. I wouldn't know where to draw the line agewise, when a young child becomes and older child - that's up for debate! I also believe any single parent - any adult - should be entitled to benefits that offer a minimum standard of living, but after that, get properly rewarded for any work they do.

However, having said all this, Scummymummy, I do agree with you. It's very narrow minded of us to assume that all single parents will have the ways and means, mental atttitude and opportunties to get off benefits. So I suppose it all boils down to ensuring that all single parents have both financial support and choice.

Just as well I'm not in politics - I'd be trying to raise taxes no end!

I don't think it's ok, Lil. I just think it would be unsurprising. I don't profess to be an expert but, from what I've seen, the social support systems avaliable to families and children needing help in this country are absolutely shockingly awful. It sometimes seems like people are set up to fail because they don't get help and support when they need it AND because their lives haven't given them enough strength to fight the system and win.
I'm not talking about people like Lizzer here, who are motivated and determined to succeed in the face of difficulties. From her posts I've always thought that Lizzer is obviously very intelligent and resourceful. She seems also to have a great family and a wonderful personality. She sounds like she's claiming benefits as a temporary measure because her choices are limited IN THE SHORT TERM. I would be very, very, very, very surprised if Lizzer doesn't do fantastically well by herself and her daughter.
I'm talking about the people who don't have the ammunition Lizzer has to face hardships- people who've never had a chance, really. It's mostly these people who become "benefit mums" as you put it, Lil- IMO it's often because they don't know that there are other options. Nothing in their lives has indicated that such other options are available to them.

Tigermoth- it's fine by me if you go into politics! I think your last post is very balanced and well thought out.
(As an aside, though, I think sometimes boarders pay a very high emotional price for their posh education and subsequent achievements, particularly if they attend such a school from a young age.)

Scummymum your last point is probably the clincher "IMO it's often because they don't know that there are other options. Nothing in their lives has indicated that such other options are available to them". Too true. Its such a viscious circle - as one set of youngsters grows up to witness their mother's apathy and state reliance, they don't realise it can be different for them. Obviously the current system is not working. But as with any DSS upheaval, the politicians have got to have the balls for a real rethink!!! (what is the mumsnet feminist equivalent of that phrase??)

Ohhh, Tigermoth, I'm always doing this - I mean more or less what I say but I don't usually put it very well or say everything I mean - if you see what I mean.

I certainly don't think anybody should be paid to stay home until their kids are 16, or that kids whose mothers choose to work are less secure than those who don't, or any other similar implied criticisms in what I did or didn't say. I agree that there should be better provision of childcare for those who need it and that there should be more help and advice and encouragement to single parents to study or work.

All I really mean is that I think parents (usually female) in Wendy's situation should be able to stay at home with their pre-school children if that's what they want to do - it must be better for those children than being cared for by someone more detached, while their exhausted parent has hardly any time for them after slogging through a 40 hour week for a pretty small amount of money. (The minions - including me - where I work get £4.70 an hour. It doesn't go very far.)

I agree with you completely about not financing the idle to sit home all day. I wonder how they manage this sort of thing in more socialist (enlightened) countries like Sweden or Holland. Anybody know? (Taxes in Sweden are far higher than ours...)

Lil, I wasn't meaning to disparage childminders either. Didn't think that through either. As for the (relatively few, surely?) women who go on and on having kids - like the one in the summer who was given a HUGE house, in Cornwall or somewhere? - what do you think should be done to stop them or make them work?

I suppose because I am thinking of specific people in specific situations I didn't consider the wider implications of what I said. So I do apologise for the irritation caused!

I didn't think this thread would spiral like this, but I'm pleased it has - always up for a balanced discussion. Firstly like to say thanks for comments regarding myself that I can only hope to prove true in the coming years, its the start of a very long road and one that I'm not famimilar with in the slightest but now I have a 'goal' ie my daughter's financial and emotional wellbeing, I feel I can achieve what I've set out to do (also am really hoping that I am as intelligent as you claim I am Scummy )

I agree that some young parents who think they are on to a good thing by settling for income support and housing benefit for years are just perpetuating (sp?) the cycle of bad values and general apathy. I have seen this first hand myself as the voluntary job I do for the NSPCC is to run a six week course with a group of 14-15 yr olds, the aim being to make them think about all aspects of having children and in doing so (hopefully) inspiring them enough to realise that they are in control of their own future and they can live it how they choose, not how circumstances dictate...

Recently I have just finished this course in the 'worst' (wish I could think of a better name to give it) secondary school in the area, as far as social factors go. The children there were perfect for this course as it is obviously not aimed at middle class, intelligent soon-to-be-sixth formers. These kids were unsure about what they were going to do when they left school, hadn't even bothered to think about it really and most came from v low income families. One girl I took a shine to, she was pale and unhealthy looking with a vacant expression in her eyes. She couldn't wait to take the 'electronic baby' that we use as part of the course home. But I was puzzled by her intentions, it seemed to me she was using it as 'practice' rather than 'prevention' (but don't worry, we have the option of setting baby to awkward mode, fnah, fnah, fnah!) During the course this girl told me that her Mum had had her when she was 16 - she described to me that she had, 'gone out to get pregnant with her, and she did'. I was a little taken aback at such defiant comment, it was as if she was saying to me that her Mum had wanted to have her and this somehow proved her love. I decided to make light of it by asking her gently, 'gosh, well can you imagine that, being pregnant at your age and mising out on everything thats going on?' The pause before she answered quietly, 'no' told me everything. Why shouldn't she? Her Mum had coped she would cope, why bother thinking about college, jobs, housing? She could have a baby then someone else would pay for it all, just like Mum...
These children have no role models and never will and that is what is sorely missing from their lives. How many people here learnt the standards by which they set their own life from their parents. I know I do and that is what is keeping me going - I want their standard of living and more importantly I want it for my children.

Incidently, I saw the young girl in a pet shop the other day. She was happily cooing over the rabbits and hamsters, maternal beyond her years, wanting something to love. I'll be looking out for her name in the birth announcement section of our local rag next year...

Jenny2998, I applaud you, I think your doing great. My mum was on her own bringing up 2 kids on benefits in the 70's and it was hard on all of us. We were very poor and often lived on bread and jam. When my friends came over, they were always commenting on the fact that we didn't have biscuits etc and I was always having to explain why. I was the only kid at school who didn't have 2 parents. My mum was really young when she had us, 19 and then 22 and she hadn't a clue about being a parent. However, she made sure that the future wasn't always going to be so bleak by getting herself educated. She did 3 A'levels in a year and then went to university(where I was put in the creche) and did her degree. She also worked in the evenings in a pub (cash in hand) to help ends meet. I know that this was all incredibly hard on her, she was pretty exhausted, but she started her career and within a few more years had really got somewhere: able to afford to buy a flat, car etc. Having had my baby, it really brings home to me how difficult it must have been for her, and I've forgiven her for her absences during my childhood because I realise that they were very necessary.

Lizzer, what a touching story.

Don't really have anything to add other than my support for all mothers, especially those who are struggling to cope in hard circumstances, financial or otherwise.

I vaguely recall seeing a programme about Sweden which stated that if you became unemployed you received 90 - 100% of your previous income for a year. Which seems a pretty humane response - presumably you have financial commitments based upon a certain level of income so the state is providing a soft landing. I don't know the National Debt situations in Scandinavian countries but they appear to be fairly egalitarian societies.

I feel very uncomfortable with comments regarding people on benefits going on to have more children. I am very uneasy with the idea that you can only breed if you can afford it. I used to know many young women who became single women on benefits - this wasn't their intention. A few happened to be naively romantic abour dead loss boyfriends and for others, I suspect, it gave them a staus. They had little education, were living in a declining Welsh seaside resort where the major employers were nursing homes.

I think that most of us here know good and bad examples of mother's on state benefits, which is why it is so hard to make sweeping statements or judgements as everyone is an individual. Jbr's attitude seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong Jbr) that mothers, whether they be single or partnered, should try to find work as soon as possible after their baby is born. Which I strongly disagree with.
Luckily I am married and my partner brings in the wages. I do feel guilty at times, especially this time of year when I feel that I am using his money to buy him a present. But I want to stay at home with my child until she is old enough to talk, I don't trust anyone else with her. If I were a single mum on benefits I would leap down the throat of anyone who tried to persuade me to go to work. Childrearing is the most important, underpaid, and stressful job you can have, especially as a single mum. There is no promotion, no time off, no sick pay, not even a cigarette break. Why shouldn't the state pay for mums to stay at home with their kids?
Ok, those mums who have older kids at school and are still staying at home I have less sympathy for, but round here (Lancashire) we have no free child places for 3 year olds yet, we have to wait until our kids are 4. So if the mum wants to stay at home to bring up her kids until they are four, on state benefit, why shouldn't she? I don't mind paying for that, I understand the reluctance to send their kids to a nursery or a childminder.
The government should be giving us mums the choice to decide what is best for our children. In the 80's there was a big hoo-hah by sociologists on the damage done to so-called 'latch key kids', now the situation has been turned on it's head. I'm not saying that those of you who work are selfish, hopefully I'll be joining you soon, but society just can't go around telling us how to bring up our children and making us feel guilty in the choices we make.

Ok rant over.

Lizzer, your comments are so poignant and the story of the 16 year old girl so touching.

I applaud you for doing what you are doing and your daughter will be very proud of her mummy one day.

I was lucky enough to be in well-paid full time employment before I embarked (more by accident than design, being a bit of a catastrophe when it came to contraception....!) on child-bearing and although I am absolutely exhausted most of the time (bringing up 4 on your own is not an easy task) I realise how lucky I am to have a good job and standard of living.

I think it is very important for children to have a good role model and hope that I am portraying a good image to my children although the high level of exhaustion sometimes turns me into the cantankerous monstermum from hellblock B!!!

What really bugs me though, is those childless colleagues who gripe on about working mothers but then those same people gripe on about mothers on benefits too, so you just can't win.

Lisav, you wrote.."but society just can't go around telling us how to bring up our children and making us feel guilty in the choices we make."

Why not? Isn't society about living within boundaries, and if you want the protection of society there are cerain rules, and no I don't think that asking parents to be financially responsible for their children is unduly harsh!!(with all the sensible caveats we have already mentioned).

I work occasional days because I was long term unemployed and took what I could. Also, it pays the bills. I get paid enough to get what we need. It certainly isn't about "I am a woman therefore I shouldn't work full time".

I did until I lost my job. My CV is getting more holes in it than an old pair of tights LOL!

Lisa so men can work and women shouldn't. What is the difference?

Not saying women shouldn't work Jbr, just that they shouldn't have to answer to anyone if they decide to stay at home with their children.

I agree with your point Lil, but society sometimes thrusts so many negative images on mothers, it's hard to make any kind of a choice without someone telling you that it is wrong. Look at Mumsnet, we have threads on guilt for working full-time and part-time, guilt for staying at home, guilt for not breast-feeding, guilt for being a single mum, guilt for being on benefits, the list is endless. We mothers get picked on by society more than any other class of people IMPO. Parenting is such hard work I sometimes wish that society could be more understanding and more giving instead of condemning.

Jenny2998- Do you have any thoughts on what everyone's said in response to your post? It's certainly raised some strong views. I'd be interested in what you think of it all...

LisaV, just to turn your argument on its head, why should the state pay for mums to stay at home and look after children?
Deep down, I feel that we "should" all have some kind of obligation not to be takers all our lives. Many of us will have to look to society (or the state) for support at some point in our life and IMO that's what social security should be for.
I completely agree that some people seem never to be able to break the cycle of dependency and this is a real waste of money & talent in this country. Quite how we go about changing it, I don't really know.
However, I'm not sure that state (other members of society) should automatically be paying for mothers to stay at home. What right do mothers have to this benefit? Surely, we would have to prove conclusively that exclusively mother reared children have some advantage over others, and that would have very far reaching implications across a whole range of issues.

lil, i totally agree with you,i have 2 children and 1 on the way my husband works long hours to support us.Im not saying that people who are on benefits shouldnt have kids,but its very annoying when people continue to bear kids and have no intention of working to support them,benefits,i think should be used as a stop gap to allow parents to care for their family,and then return to work when their able to.We wont be haveing any more children because we coudnt afford it, so why do some people on benefits think its their right to have as many children as they want, and continue to rely on other working people to support their family.