Restrict child benefit to co-habiting couples only

[Wildcat]

I can see that opinion and do understand that my views may seem oppressive.I wasn't just talking child benefit i was talking about benefits in general for having more children(as i stated in my opneing post iirc).

From experience i have a niece who had 2 kids to 2 different fathers before she was 18,didn't allege to know them and apparently the pill failed. Twice sure!!

She got a council home and everything else - and still has them 18 years later.

I have a second niece who has just turned 16 and is pregnant - again the pill failed. Has no progress been made in education or chemicals in 18 years. I would have hoped so but apparently not. You guessed it, no fathers name, council flat and all the goodies.

All i would have asked as a parent, is get his name. get it on the certificate and let your child know who they are. Then the responsibilty can be fairly distributed and the financials dealt with accordingly.

 

As a parent I can understand the desire to know. I can understand the state taking an interest in that it can alleviate costs to itself by helping ensure that the father plays their financial part in the upbringing of the child.

 

But in my opinion penalising the child if the mother doesn't know the father's name for a mistake which I think your examples show is not that uncommon is taking the moralising nanny state too far.

[Ms Macbeth]

I think people get confused about child benefit (universal benefit for every child, not means tested) and welfare benefits, (means tested and based on family size), and child tax credits - not sure what these are based on. Confused? I am.

 

Society now doesn't make moral judgements about a single woman having a child, unlike a couple of generations ago when stigma was a great contraceptive! As in the swinging 60s. I'm glad our society is much freer, however, the responsibilities that go with these freedoms seem to have completely bypassed some of our society. I know that mistakes can be made, ie contraception not working, or even not using it, resulting in pregnancy. However, there is plenty of free advice and contraception available, and its a concern that people, who have no income other than benefits, will continue to produce children to be supported by the state.

 

Generally, each child has two parents (I know there will be exceptions), but I'm talking the majority. When two parents live together, they can both contribute, and two incomes, even if one is part-time, are always going to be better than benefits. When two parents live apart, but both have earned income its still better. But what has happened is the growth of lone parents (generally mothers) with no jobs, where the other parent (generally the fathers) have no jobs, and make no contribution to the upkeep of their offspring. What responsibility should these fathers take for the financial (or other) support of the children they produce?

 

This is quite different to families, single parent or otherwise, where jobs are lost after years of being self sufficient. They often have mortgages, so don't get the same level of help with housing costs. These families should, IMO, get more support at least in the short term. But they don't appear to.

[artisan]

All i would have asked as a parent, is get his name. get it on the certificate and let your child know who they are. Then the responsibilty can be fairly distributed and the financials dealt with accordingly.

 

I agree regarding the financial part, but if the geezer is a dole wallah, they only take about a couple of quid, if that.

Also sometimes it is best if the child has nothing to do at all with the 'father', let alone be saddled with his name also.

[carly83]

but you don't get £200 a week for all the other "accidents " though.

 

People aren't saying all accidents aren't genuine and these are things the SS will obviously check for. But 4 kids etc to different unknown fathers or undeclared fathers would in my opinion be just cause to restrict some benefits. If you want to discuss extreme exceptions of getting pregnant accidentally lets also talk extremes of wanton child production,like the woman in Leeds with 5 kids(who was recently done for abduction).

 

not sure where that price has come from child benefit is £20.30 pw for the first child then around £13/£14 pw for siblings, and thats for every child not just those with single mothers so maybe shift the focus of your posts to all children/parents as stipulating some children over others is simply perverse.

 

the other 'accidents' i list do cost the tax payers they cost by means of police to deal with a mugging nhs to deal with food intolerances and being hit by a bus.

[carly83]

All i would have asked as a parent, is get his name. get it on the certificate and let your child know who they are. Then the responsibilty can be fairly distributed and the financials dealt with accordingly.

 

maybe you missed it but if you go back a few pages theres a post from me informing that its not that easy, the father (if unmarried) is required by law to be present whilst registering the birth in order to be on the birth certificut, what about all the blokes that say im not going on it might not be mine, or those where women have flea'd violence or abuse, as i also stated earlyer i found out before my daughter was born was a paedophile and i sure as hell was not going to beg him to go to register her birth with me and why should i!

[carly83]

Why not? Are they somehow special or unique from couples or childless single people.

Is getting benefits in general for having children not removing the burden of provision from the parent. Why is that Victorian?

Yep accidents happen - but all of them aren't accidents.

 

I don't have an issue with the individuals, they haven't done anything different to anyone else, they haven't committed a crime, its just the system that in my opinion is perceived to discriminate in their favour.

 

whats victorian is that you obviously asume all single mothers are on full benefits and not working, women can do both now, there a hell of a lot that work and juggle childcare so they can provide for there child

[carly83]

I think people get confused about child benefit (universal benefit for every child, not means tested) and welfare benefits, (means tested and based on family size), and child tax credits - not sure what these are based on. Confused? I am.

 

.

 

they are means tested, every parent is entitled to them (for now! although im sure something was on the news about them being scraped for parents brnging in more than £40,000pa) the rate at which they recieve will differ with income but there is a minimum just cant remeber the rates

[Cyclone]

It's still not an accident because that person has still chosen to have sex and so has chosen to expose themselves to the possibility of ending up pregnant. I'm sure everyone must know that contraception is not 100% effective, it was certainly taught to death when I was at school so I imagine it still is.

They've taken precautions and didn't intend for that outcome to occur.

That's pretty much the definition of accident isn't it?

 

Some women will have a sexual relationship with a complete (can't post the word!), get pregnant then whine when he disappears, and it's kind of like, well you put yourself in his bed. Maybe some women should be a little more choosy!

 

I don't think more emphasis should be put on fathers because ultimately women are responsible for their own bodies and make their own choices.

Where as men have no choice? It takes 2 people to make a child.

 

If I ended up pregnant by some randomer who wasn't interested, I would class that as being my fault not his.

I'd say that you were equally responsible, unless you forced him into having sex with you.

[willman]

not sure where that price has come from child benefit is £20.30 pw for the first child then around £13/£14 pw for siblings, and thats for every child not just those with single mothers so maybe shift the focus of your posts to all children/parents as stipulating some children over others is simply perverse.

 

the other 'accidents' i list do cost the tax payers they cost by means of police to deal with a mugging nhs to deal with food intolerances and being hit by a bus.

 

Perhaps you missed the point where i stated (right at the beginning) i support child benefit BUT question the child elements of welfare benefits.

As for everything else - why would we change one aspect of the system yet leave the issue regarding birth certificate naming as they are.

If we continue to go "what about" and bring up marginal excuses for not changing the system we'll continue with the system we have, which sucks IMHO.(in other areas as well)

I never said anything about working mums, single parents etc or their abilites . I made a clear opinion 2 names on the birth certificate or a reduction in child elements of benefits. Nothing else.

 

Whilst we're talking accidents - IF they don't know the mans name why are they having unprotected sex not just contraception? Surely the odds of sperm beating a condom and the pill are minute.

 

Why shouldn't the fathers name be on the birth certificate - the people who see it are unlikely to know he's a paedo. Those who know he's a paedo already know he's your daughters dad.

[Cyclone]

You're punishing innocent children to satisfy some sort of moral objection though.