Jobless mother-of-10 vows to keep having more babies

[Sola]

I was reading about the new benefit caps and it made me think of this woman. The new caps are at £350 for single people and £500 for parents, families and couples, regardless of how many children. If she's currently getting £30 000 a year in benefits, that's £576.92 a week. If it's being capped at £500 a week, her yearly benefits will drop by nearly £4000. Having another child won't change that, whatever the Daily Fail thinks, it will just mean that her husband's income and the family's benefits will be stretched more thinly.

On the bright side, the family's not at risk of succumbing to the bedroom tax.

It shouldn't apply to them. It only applies when neither parent is working, according to what I saw on the news this morning. Anyone who is in work, even if they earn such a low wage that they require benefits top up, wont be capped. As long as the husband keeps working then they will still get the benefits as they are classed as 'in work' benefits. Plus if she gets DLA for one of her children, the cap wont apply anyway. Anyone with a disabled family member who lives with them and gets DLA wont be capped.

[alba]

It shouldn't apply to them. It only applies when neither parent is working, according to what I saw on the news this morning. Anyone who is in work, even if they earn such a low wage that they require benefits top up, wont be capped. As long as the husband keeps working then they will still get the benefits as they are classed as 'in work' benefits. Plus if she gets DLA for one of her children, the cap wont apply anyway. Anyone with a disabled family member who lives with them and gets DLA wont be capped.

Ah, OK. I didn't see anything on the Beeb about it only applying to non-working families.

Aren't they "reforming" (aka ruining) DLA? I don't know how that would affect this family, though, as most of what I've read applies to disabled adults living independently.

[Sola]

Ah, OK. I didn't see anything on the Beeb about it only applying to non-working families.

Aren't they "reforming" (aka ruining) DLA? I don't know how that would affect this family, though, as most of what I've read applies to disabled adults living independently.

The DLA I do know quite a bit about as the Girl gets it. It is changing to PiP (personal independence payments) from October with some trial areas supposed to have it from the beginning of this month - although it looks like it's been postponed due to some issues or another. PiP only applies to adults as children, for now, are remaining on DLA. Between October and 2015, everyone over 16 who receives DLA will be reassessed for PiP, including those previously given an indefinite award. There are currently three levels to DLA Care and two levels to DLA Mobility. PiP will only have two levels on each part of the award. The lowest level of the Care component is being done away with. In theory every adult will be reassessed and required to go for a medical. However, written into the small print of the ATOS contract is a provisio; Certain people who have a proper medical diagnosis of certain disorders/disabilities can refuse to attend a medical and should not be required to attend one. Those are people with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, certain cancers and quadriplegics. Personally I think that should be extended to various other disabilities and it also should be publicised as there has already been people within those sections who have been told they must attend a medical. Even ATOS itself isn't sure about its own rules.

Back to this family, if the child who is getting DLA is under 16, they will continue to receive DLA until the date their award runs out. Kids usually get a 3 to 5 year award, and it is always reassessed when the child reaches 15.5yrs of age anyway. Once PiP for children comes in - I think after 2018 - all kids up for reassessment will be given PiP forms, until then they stay with DLA.

[alba]

The DLA I do know quite a bit about as the Girl gets it. It is changing to PiP (personal independence payments) from October with some trial areas supposed to have it from the beginning of this month - although it looks like it's been postponed due to some issues or another. PiP only applies to adults as children, for now, are remaining on DLA. Between October and 2015, everyone over 16 who receives DLA will be reassessed for PiP, including those previously given an indefinite award. There are currently three levels to DLA Care and two levels to DLA Mobility. PiP will only have two levels on each part of the award. The lowest level of the Care component is being done away with. In theory every adult will be reassessed and required to go for a medical. However, written into the small print of the ATOS contract is a provisio; Certain people who have a proper medical diagnosis of certain disorders/disabilities can refuse to attend a medical and should not be required to attend one. Those are people with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, certain cancers and quadriplegics. Personally I think that should be extended to various other disabilities and it also should be publicised as there has already been people within those sections who have been told they must attend a medical. Even ATOS itself isn't sure about its own rules.

Back to this family, if the child who is getting DLA is under 16, they will continue to receive DLA until the date their award runs out. Kids usually get a 3 to 5 year award, and it is always reassessed when the child reaches 15.5yrs of age anyway. Once PiP for children comes in - I think after 2018 - all kids up for reassessment will be given PiP forms, until then they stay with DLA.

Thanks for the info ^_^

I'm not surprised ATOS doesn't know its own rules; isn't this the company that deemed people fit to work and they died only a few weeks later?

[Katiebug]

I would not at all say the try working thing. If anything my point is that by insisting it is a job we are trying to fancy it up, when we don't need to it. Parenting stands on its own. We shouldn't have to call it a job to respect and appreciate the works parents do.

A friend of mine became a SAHM around a year ago and she rails against the rhetoric of "being a SAHM is the hardest job you'll ever have!" that is so often trumpeted by SAHMs themselves. She openly says it was much more challenging to have to work 40+ hours a week for a paycheck and still do a good chunk of the cooking, cleaning, and hands-on child care. Yes, being primary caregiver for two young children is stressful in its own way but her life is significantly less busy and stressful overall now that she isn't working.

(To be fair, her husband is big on the man-as-provider, woman-as-homemaker model of gender roles, so even when she worked she did 95% of the cooking, cleaning, and hands-on parenting. So when she left the workforce she really did have a lot more time in which to accomplish the tasks of daily life for a family with young children.)

I agree, parenting stands on its own and we don't need to pretty it up and call it a career or a job when it isn't. I can see being a homemaker as an occupation which may include the daily care of young children - but it's not a job.

[HOTW]

Being a mother isn't a job. I realize that is unpopular, but I never understood the importance of trying to make it a job or career. It just isn't. That is a value neutral statement, just because it isn't a job doesn't have any impact on its value.

But it just isn't.

Then I guess being a day care provider, nanny or au pair isn't a job either?

[treemom]

Then I guess being a day care provider, nanny or au pair isn't a job either?

No it is a job. Because they are not the child's parents.

I guess I don't understand the point in calling it a job? Why should we? Shouldn't parenting stand on its own?

[treemom]

And I am glad that there are funds for this family...whether that are "taking advantage of it" or not. No matter how I view it (and I can't even begin to make a judgment based on an article in the daily fail) it is good that kids and families are taken care of and have housing and food.

My only point was in the same way I hate it when people say father's are babysitting when they care for their kids, that we can mothering or parenting a job. Parenting is good enough on its own. In fact, the hard choices and decisions and successes and failures of parenting are sometimes harder than a job or career and often less rewarding (and sometimes more rewarding or easier). I think we should just respect parenting on its own without calling it something else.

[badmath]

Hey, it's just a thought. I never said it would be a large tax... and the same rules would apply for anyone who can't pay their taxes or properly care for their children... we already have laws in place for those situations. Be responsible and have the amount of children you can afford, simple as that. Birth control is easily accessible in the US. Do I believe in government assistance for people in need? Absolutely... but you have a draw a line somewhere, because irresponsible behavior should not be rewarded. I think having to pay a small tax after you accumulate a certain amount of kids would deter the exact behavior/selfish lifestyles that this forum loves to condemn. And if you can afford the slew kids... then by all means, breed away!

[yewchapel]

Hey, it's just a thought. I never said it would be a large tax... and the same rules would apply for anyone who can't pay their taxes or properly care for their children... we already have laws in place for those situations. Be responsible and have the amount of children you can afford, simple as that. Birth control is easily accessible in the US. Do I believe in government assistance for people in need? Absolutely... but you have a draw a line somewhere, because irresponsible behavior should not be rewarded. I think having to pay a small tax after you accumulate a certain amount of kids would deter the exact behavior/selfish lifestyles that this forum loves to condemn. And if you can afford the slew kids... then by all means, breed away!

But what 'rewards' do you think large families are getting? The financial assistance they are getting is very small when shared between the whole household. Also, birth control fails sometimes, no matter how consistently used - would you have women choose between an abortion or being taxed? Mostly though, I just don't see why low-income large families are being targeted when the amount of taxpayers' money they use is actually very small in comparison to you know, banks being bailed out. If you're going to tax anyone, tax millionaires and not the mother of 10 who is a carer for a disabled child. In terms of the ZOMG GUBMINT RESOURCES!!!! argument, maybe you should be looking at banks instead?

[Mama Mia]

Hey, it's just a thought. I never said it would be a large tax... and the same rules would apply for anyone who can't pay their taxes or properly care for their children... we already have laws in place for those situations. Be responsible and have the amount of children you can afford, simple as that. Birth control is easily accessible in the US. Do I believe in government assistance for people in need? Absolutely... but you have a draw a line somewhere, because irresponsible behavior should not be rewarded. I think having to pay a small tax after you accumulate a certain amount of kids would deter the exact behavior/selfish lifestyles that this forum loves to condemn. And if you can afford the slew kids... then by all means, breed away!

No, paying an extra tax means that people who are well off are encouraged to have children, while people who are not as wealthy are discouraged - because $ = better - right ? Except it doesn't. :angry-banghead:

[Widget]

Birth control is easily accessible in the US.

Is it now?

It's upwards of $30 a month if you pay cash, requires multiple doctor visits, is widely not covered by insurance, and when it is covered often has the highest copay. That's not something easy for someone on a very low income who likely has limited access to child care or transportation. PP can help, but they aren't everywhere.

Absolutely... but you have a draw a line somewhere, because irresponsible behavior should not be rewarded. I think having to pay a small tax after you accumulate a certain amount of kids would deter the exact behavior/selfish lifestyles that this forum loves to condemn. And if you can afford the slew kids... then by all means, breed away!

And if we are talking about the US, you are aware kids born while the mother is already on welfare do NOT increase benefits and haven't for a long time? They are already being de facto taxed by those children being invisible for benefit calculations.

What are these luxurious rewards you seem to think large families are receiving?

[jaynie]

I think having to pay a small tax after you accumulate a certain amount of kids would deter the exact behavior/selfish lifestyles that this forum loves to condemn.

I'm going to ignore the things everyone has already addressed to say this: I don't think it would deter people. People don't want children because they're cheap. People living in absolute, abject, literally-no-bread-on-the-table poverty still have kids, still *choose* to have kids, and what's a 2+ child tax when you've already got nothing left to lose? Plus, often people in poverty are extra motivated to have children because raising a kid is the only possible contribution they feel they can make to the world. You're talking about pretty powerful motivational factors here; a tax will do nothing to override those factors and everything to put already-poor families in danger.

[Gil]

Birth control is easily accessible in the US.

Golly, is it? Because I was under the impression that I couldn't afford mine anymore.

[formergothardite]

From what I can tell, if a person doesn't pay their taxes(and I guess this would apply to poor families that on purpose or accidently had a third child and can't afford the taxes) you can have your bank accounts, car, house seized and eventually be put in jail. So, badmath are you saying that you would do this to poor families, along with not giving the third child any help with food or medical care which will eventually end up with these kids either starving or being put in the foster system?

Birth control is not easily accessible, are you going to give that away to people who can't afford it? It is also not 100%, so are you going to force poor women to have abortions(since they won't be able to pay the taxes on this child or be able to feed them), force them to give the child up for adoption to a rich family, or force all poor women who have two children to be sterilized so there would be no risk of a third child? What about the people who have a third child, can afford that child, but due to circumstances outside their control they no longer can? Their first kids get help with food and medical care while the third goes without? Are they supposed to turn that child over to the government to raise when the fall into poverty?

If forcing these things and allowing children to starve and go without medical care is what you meant when you originally said your idea was "harsh" then own up to it. If you realize you don't want to actually force these things so your plan is just cruel, admit that. Don't do the cop out and just say "people should be responsible", look at what will really happen if your plan was reality and say if you think that would be a better reality then what we have now.

[Sola]

Thanks for the info ^_^

I'm not surprised ATOS doesn't know its own rules; isn't this the company that deemed people fit to work and they died only a few weeks later?

Yes, ATOS cockups are well documented. Including one where a wheelchair bound claimant was required to attend a medical. The medical was held upstairs in a building with no lifts. Not quite sure how they were expected to get up the stairs... :roll:

[badmath]

If forcing these things and allowing children to starve and go without medical care is what you meant when you originally said your idea was "harsh" then own up to it. If you realize you don't want to actually force these things so your plan is just cruel, admit that. Don't do the cop out and just say "people should be responsible", look at what will really happen if your plan was reality and say if you think that would be a better reality then what we have now.

It's not just black and white, obviously. Everything has grey areas and exceptions. (P.S. I never said anything about children starving or going without medical care in my imaginary world.) But my main point is this... bringing children into the world that you cannot feed, clothe or properly care for is what's CRUEL. People should absolutely be more responsible and should be held responsible. Children are a choice, and they're not a choice to be taken lightly.

And it's interesting to me that people on here are all "oh birth control is not affordable"... well let me ask you this, which is cheaper?

Birth control OR birthing a child without medical insurance?

Birth control OR raising a child to adulthood?

Condoms OR medication and treatment for STDs?

People really shouldn't excuse/promote irresponsible behavior and unprotected sex.

[Feberin]

It's not just black and white, obviously. Everything has grey areas and exceptions. (P.S. I never said anything about children starving or going without medical care in my imaginary world.) But my main point is this... bringing children into the world that you cannot feed, clothe or properly care for is what's CRUEL. People should absolutely be more responsible and should be held responsible. Children are a choice, and they're not a choice to be taken lightly.

And it's interesting to me that people on here are all "oh birth control is not affordable"... well let me ask you this, which is cheaper?

Birth control OR birthing a child without medical insurance?

Birth control OR raising a child to adulthood?

Condoms OR medication and treatment for STDs?

People really shouldn't excuse/promote irresponsible behavior and unprotected sex.

My SIL just had a baby without insurance but they are poor enough the state payed for everything, which is wonderful because she had a very difficult pregnancy and was in and out of the hospital the whole time. Had she not had access to medical care she would have died. And she was using a condom but it broke so this wasn't a planned pregnancy.

I think the problem with people not being careful is partly that they figure they won't get pregnant or aren't thinking about the future carefully enough in terms of how much children cost. Also if you already have kids, a parent that isn't working, cloth diaper and breastfeed then babies are cheap. Of course they don't stay cheap but those costs can seem distant at the time.

[formergothardite]

It's not just black and white, obviously. Everything has grey areas and exceptions. (P.S. I never said anything about children starving or going without medical care in my imaginary world.) But my main point is this... bringing children into the world that you cannot feed, clothe or properly care for is what's CRUEL. People should absolutely be more responsible and should be held responsible. Children are a choice, and they're not a choice to be taken lightly.

And it's interesting to me that people on here are all "oh birth control is not affordable"... well let me ask you this, which is cheaper?

Birth control OR birthing a child without medical insurance?

Birth control OR raising a child to adulthood?

Condoms OR medication and treatment for STDs?

People really shouldn't excuse/promote irresponsible behavior and unprotected sex.

So you are going to give additional government resources to poor families that have more than two children so that they can be fed, clothed and have medical care? Because earlier in this thread you said that you didn't think families should get any extra resources for additional children. If you aren't giving additional money for food and medical care, then those children are going to go without.

You are reminding me of all the anti-choice people who think making abortion illegal will just end abortion, it doesn't, it just causes more people to suffer. Making it so that poor families can only have two children or be taxed along with not receiving additional resources for those children will not stop poor people from having more than two children, it will just cause more suffering. The point isn't, is it responsible for poor people to have more than two children, the point is, this is going to happen no matter what, so what is your plan when it does happen? What is your plan when the familes need more resources or the children will suffer? What is your plan when the families can't pay the taxes? Are you going to take their bank accounts, house and throw the parents in jail? Look at the reality of what your plan is.

[treemom]

I think wanting children is a perfectly acceptable reason to have them. And I don't think there is any reason to tax people for that.

[alba]

It's not just black and white, obviously. Everything has grey areas and exceptions. (P.S. I never said anything about children starving or going without medical care in my imaginary world.) But my main point is this... bringing children into the world that you cannot feed, clothe or properly care for is what's CRUEL. People should absolutely be more responsible and should be held responsible. Children are a choice, and they're not a choice to be taken lightly.

It's crueller to make it harder for parents to feed and care for their children by taking away some of the money that could go towards caring for those children.

You can improve access to birth control and abortions, and you can seek to change the societal ideal where women must have children to be considered worthwhile, but beyond that you'll be stepping on women's and children's rights.

[HOTW]

No it is a job. Because they are not the child's parents.

I guess I don't understand the point in calling it a job? Why should we? Shouldn't parenting stand on its own?

I don't buy it, if a person is raising your kids because you work then its a job but if you raise your kids and forgo a job it isn't? Raising kids is a job because it isn't easy and although parenting should stand on its own it is the fact that SAHM are being minimized because they don't have a "job, career" that there is no appreciation for those who choose to stay home and raise their kids and forego the extra income. It cannot be a job for one person and then again not in the next instant.

[treemom]

I don't buy it, if a person is raising your kids because you work then its a job but if you raise your kids and forgo a job it isn't? Raising kids is a job because it isn't easy and although parenting should stand on its own it is the fact that SAHM are being minimized because they don't have a "job, career" that there is no appreciation for those who choose to stay home and raise their kids and forego the extra income. It cannot be a job for one person and then again not in the next instant.

When did childcare providers start raising our kids?

And yes it can, if you pay a housekeeper or a chef or a mechanic they have a job. But when I clean or cook or change my brakes it is just what I have to do if I don't pay someone for it.

But childcare providers are not raising kids and they are not parenting and for god sakes, SAHM are not minimized. Is there a reason they need appreciation from the general public?

[takers401]

When did childcare providers start raising our kids?

And yes it can, if you pay a housekeeper or a chef or a mechanic they have a job. But when I clean or cook or change my brakes it is just what I have to do if I don't pay someone for it.

But childcare providers are not raising kids and they are not parenting and for god sakes, SAHM are not minimized. Is there a reason they need appreciation from the general public?

Jumping in! I think that childcare providers help to raise kids but are not the sole 'raiser'. It'd be the same if Grandma/Grandpa watched the kids for a significant amount of time each week. I don't think it's a bad thing to have multiple people raise your kids at all. Depending on how you look at it we all have multiple people raising our kids.

I do think that being a SAHM means that your job IS taking care of the home, running errands, minding kids, etc. As I am a SAHM my husband and I look at my job as doing the in-home stuff so that my husband can focus on his career as it's the bill payer. It's a job because it allows for someone else (my husband) to do their job (his work). If I was sick or out of town my husband would need to diminish his job to cover mine.

I don't require general public appreciation, but I'll admit it's nice to be acknowledged as doing something worthwhile as opposed to being lazy, not able to hack it in the "real world", uneducated, or taking the easy way out. Not that you've said this at all. I just feel that my accomplishments as a SAHM are just as awesome as when I transitioned our sites payroll system from three companies to twenty.

[treemom]

Who called mothering lazy? Certainly not me.

And no, child care providers are not raising kids. They are caring for the child why the parent is away. The majority of the heavy lifting of parenting is still performed by the parents. But if that is the case, are teachers raising our kids too?

And a definition of a job isn't, does it free up time for someone else. And since you were clear on saying SAHM is a job and has all these specific duties, how are those duties different than just being an adult and living a responsible life? Seriously do you think everyone doesn't need to clean the house and run errands?

How did this happen for you before kids? Who did it? Because those aren't jobs either, those are part of life.