The rise of single parent families

[speedymama]

BBC website have a story on the increasing numbers of single parent households and it is being discussed on the Have Your Say forum. My mouth fell open when I read some postings and I thought I would share them here. Please note that as usual, there is no mention of the fathers.

"The problem here is that many girls don't have the morals or self-respect to keep their legs shut. This lack of morals and lack of respect then permiates into the world at large - which is what causes the problem.

The stark fact is that in 21st century britain, becoming a single parent is clearly the best career option open to a large number of teenage girls.

"Of course it matters. Social decay courtesy of poor parenting and a weak Government.

If you are not in a committed relationship, don't have children.

If you are intent on being a single parent career sponger, don't have children as an economy enhancer.

I'm fed up with paying for other peoples social mistakes. Come on Britain!!"

There is an increasing trend in America to limit the amount of government subsidised help an individual can receive.

The idea is that everyone can fall on hard times or have life changing unforeseen circumstances occur, and there should be a social safety net to help people through times of crisis and need. I don't know specific details, but several states have passed legislation that limits the total time an individual can rely exclusively on the welfare state in their lifetime to 5 years (that is total, so doesn't mean 5 consecutive years).

The idea is that after 5 years if people still need financial help, they must give back to the system. If they are unable to find paid work, they are given work in order to continue receiving benefits. It is primarily unskilled labour, I believe - might be painting graffiti covered walls, clearing derelict sites, sweeping streets, collecting litter, etc.

I have no idea how this is working in reality - whether a success or disaster - and I have some serious misgivings about it. The concept that welfare is a safety net for a limited period, and not a way of life - is it inhumane, or has it motivated a significant number of people who are able to work to make different choices?

Hmmm, I dislike that for a few reasons- I can see the point dont get me wrong but:

A) Its often going to be the kids that suffer, When Mum's benefits don't get paid she still gets her fags they just don't get a decent meal. I KNOW that there are Mums who go without meals daily for their little ones, I just think you have to legislate to protect the children of the selfish ones;

B) How do disbaled people fit in with that? Found out thsi week that the national stat ofr any ASD kids working is 6%- so two of mine arelikely to be on benefits for at elast large chunks of their lives, for no fault of thier own.

C) Some people just get bad luck. My Dad will be on benefits after retirement next year. Why? Because his pension fund collapsed,, twice over . They never owned a house, car, had decent holidays, mum still shops in charity shops.... but because of how it was handled theya re not eligible for this compensatory scheme in process at the moment (in both cases the companieds were sold to American owners before the pension fund collapsed, thereby American law- ie bugger you you're not American (I confess to being bitter please forgive) applies.

Should dad have to spend his last years 'earning' the money to live that was stolen from him>? he should be on a pension of @£20,000 p/a- he'll be on state pension / housing benefit. [angrry]

Likewise jobs- if your employers go under say 8 times in your life its not your fault, its just bad luck and the way some industries go

Earlybird - I had read that the current state benefits system in the US (put in place by Clinton, iirc) has resulted in a significant decline in the number of new teenage mothers. Specifically, it says an unmarried teenage mother has to be living with an adult and go to training to qualify for aid. And they need to work a minimum number of hours a week.

Very interesting to hear these views. Peachy, sounds as though you're incredibly determined to have got where you are, and I have nothing but respect for you. A lot of what you say about helping young people to gain a sense of motivation etc is absolutely right too. I suppose the crux of the matter is, how do we create a welfare state which acts as as a safety net to prevent children being born into extreme poverty, not being fed etc. but which doesn't create a dependency culture. The girl I was talking about at my school wasn't from a deprived background, she was average ability and so on. It wasn't a case of falling pregnant accidently, she was upfront about wanting a baby and wanting it now, rather than going to college, getting a job etc. Society simply cannot be expected to just keep on providing and supporting in that situation. The real answer has to be finding a way to differentiate between the deserving cases and those people who just think society (ie everyone else) owes them something.

I suppose my personal solution would be to qualify for benefits, a young person (under 18) with a child and no partner would ahve to attend training of some kind (minimal hours at first with a creche, BF feeding facilities provided if required, over the age of 6 months- our surestart offered this), perhaps initially a compulsory parenting course (incorportaing budgeting nutrition etc); after that FE courses / whatever included. Women who attend courses such as university / FE should NOT be penalised as is currently often the case, i would even provide bonuses for milestones achieved.

Slash thes tudent loans system for anyone who has been on benefits 'long term' because hey its sheaper to have them on the loand system- you get your IS stopped at Uni, and haev to live off the loan and a small grant. And the loan (mine will be £18000 for four years!) is scary

Around our way all the housing is houses; why can't ingle mums be housed in safe, clean 2 bed flats rather than 3 bed houses? Cheaper, at least, and not quite as desirable.

There are always going to be kids who slip through the gap and want a baby at 14- I remember I did though I wouldn't have acted on it, even if I hadn't been far too minging to attract a boyfriend.

Oh and I would happlily penalise the benefits of fathers who play no part in their childs lives. No little innocents to suffer then. Perhaps if they cant afford the special brew it would be less likely to happen again.

Well said Peachy. God, why aren't people like us running this country?!

LOL- you never know

Not sure about penalising some teenage kid whose condom broke, but I agree with the rest.

Well with my boys, even if their condom breaks it is still their flesh and blood.

Niot saying they ahev to be resident aprent, just turn up for access visits occasionally, the children need this.

I do believe that for many young girls it is an actual CHOICE to get pregnant. Thy're bored at school, fed up at home, looking for some way to be grown up more quickly. A lovely baby, accommodation and benefits - I'd be tempted!

What about some sort of shared accommodation, overseen by housemothers, with facilities for the children, support and advice for the parents. It might seem less cool than getting your own flat where you can do what you like.

I owuld back thatbup for the youngsters yes

Hoever I would want the measures I suggested for otgers- I mean as has been said, not all single mums are 15. Cut price study / etc would be fab

Now go and tell your own daughters that, if they get pregnant outside of marriage, they've got to go and live in some state care home and be told every day how stupid they've been and how grateful thye ought to be that they're not living on the streets..

Why do you think they should be told every day how stupid they've been madamez? Didn't notice anyone else suggesting that? I would hope that if my teenage daughter got pregnant, her father and I would support her in every way we could. I certainly wouldn't want to kick her out. But then I wouldn't expect anyone else to pick up the pieces either, or foot the bill. And if she really couldn't bear to stay living with us, or there was not enough space, then what's wrong with some state run provision? If she and her baby were warm, fed, clothed etc what the hell would there be to complain about?

I too would care for any grandchild, I don't have a daughter (possible yet) but would take any grandchild (or relative indeed) in without question.

Interesting isn't it? You know I kind of get the impression that people who have known genuine hardship are often the ones who DON'T expect a free ride. They get on with life without complaining, and would be the kind of people who would continue supporting and caring for an unexpected grandchild. I honestly believe there's another layer of society where people just think everyone else owes them something. If a teenage girl fell unexpectedly pregnant, and decided to have the child, then if the child was her paramount concern, I think she would be grateful to be offered a state-run provision ensuring she and the child had food, warmth, clothing and training opportunities. If she wasn't satisfied with this and expected a flat of her own and enough money from the taxpayer to fund nights out, the latest mobile and perhaps a 20 a day smoking habit as well, then I would argue that she isn't actually thinking about the child - she's thinking about what she can screw the system for.

Ebenezer: why not just go the whole hog and bring back workhouses? Heaven forbid that the impoverished should ever feel they're entitled to budget for the occasional treat for themselves...

oooooooooh I remember you madamez

you like to read things into posts that aren't there, you do.

god it makes me mad. most single parent families exist because the bloke shagged and ran leaving the woman to pick up the pieces.

it takes 2 to make a baby but it is (nearly) always the bloke that turns round and says this isn't working/i can't cope/insert other crap excuse here, and sods off. what is the woman supposed to do? say oh, my man has gone, will someone please take my baby. no. they make the best of a bad situation.

what we need to do is educate men. make them understand that creating a life is not something that you can walk away from. get them to grow up and face reality. they are not going to be the centre of attention, or get sex 6 times a night, or be able to go down the pub every night..... and if they are not ready to live the life of a parent, PUT. THE. TODGER. AWAY.

then we'd see a fall in single-parenthood.

i am certainly going to hammer this message home to my sons.

Tsk MTP that post was oooh a few days back lol

Actually you are bang right. I did say earlier that I consider it as much my responsibility to eduate my boys as any mum of girls, and if they do get soemone pg that child is as much my responnsibility, flesh and blood as the mothers family.

I don't see that supported housing has to be a care home- far from, I've seens ome fab sheltered hiousing units where the residents have their own units, are free to come and go but ahve someone on site to advise them. IMO someone who is 16, pg and has nowhere to go would rpobably benefit from the security / safety of the community spirit in this sort of place. Not a palce of shame in any way- a place where what is basically children can have as a halfway house where they can learn a few skills and have someone on call whilst they adjust.

madamez, you clearly have strong feelings about this issue, but you don't help your cause by just making things up! YOU are the one talking about workhouses, YOU are the one who had the idea of teenage mothers being told daily how stupid they've been. Not anyone else! Can you explain exactly what is wrong with the proposal peachy made for young teenage mothers who intentionally get pregnant without the means to support their child. ie: they should be supported by the state to care for, feed and clothe their baby, and given appropriate training opportunities? This is what Peachy and I were talking about. Not workhouses FFS!Same goes for the lads who get the girl pregnant. In an ideal world they'd be working and supporting their child, but if they can't be arsed, then their benefits should provide for them at a basic level but no more. Explain to me WHY the 'state' (ie ordinary working mothers and fathers like myself and thousands of others on mumsnet) should be paying for them to smoke, drink , run a car etc. It's boring reading comments which only serve to show people's prejudices rather than moving the argument forward in any meaningful way.

All girls at 14 years of age, should have the implant or an injection.

and all 14 year old boys should have their cola laced with bromide.

14???? 12 more like round here!

More likely to be cider as well

If my teenage daughter got pregnant, I assume that she would have the good sense to have a termination.