Changes to lone parent payment proposed

cynder

goodmum wrote: »

It's the fact that they could bring pals home and cause mayhem if left unsupervised. What if someone was to knock at the door and the child was afraid to answer? yes, it could be the tv licence guy, but it might not be! You think it's ok to leave a 13yr old in that situation, afraid and alone, if a strange adult knocks on their door????

I know 13 year olds that are 6 foot tall!
Not too many 13 year olds are scaredy cats.
Im sure 90% of 13 year olds have mobile phones.

Your treating it as a 13 year old is able to throw parties and be completely reckless yet they are afraid and alone.

A lot of them would have older siblings (unless an only child).




*I was left home alone from the age of 8 or 9, we would come home from school and have to wait 2 hours before anyone came home to let us in (that was in primary school). I was able to cook a full dinner at 12/13, was left on our own for full days from the age of 12, I also got my first job at 14.

goodmum

And what year was that grindwald???? Is 2010. There are many, many more dangers for children in this current age. My older brothers would tell the same story about being left home alone, and getting jobs at 13. They were in the days when my parents left the front and back door open also...

The height of a 13yr old is completely and utterly irrelevant in this instance.
It's also irrelevant whether they are scardey cats or not.
No matter what height he/she is, or how scared or brave he/she is, the fact is that most 13yr olds are not responsible enough to be left alone for 8 hours a day, during their summer holidays, while their sole carer goes to work.

And apart from all of the above, what about the child?
It would be very unfair of any parent to leave a 13yr old child alone all day. What would they do? (and don't say playstation!) Where would they go etc etc.

Not everyone lives beside a bus/train station - nor beside friends or family. What would the child do with their day? What a desperately sad way for a child to spend their summer time off school, because their primary carer has been forced to go to work when they are 13.

Klingon Hamlet

Splendour wrote: »

It's fair enough if only the primary carer (be they mother or father) gets the allowance as they have all the expense of looking after the child.

That's wrong---child maintenance covers expenses. Then there's benefit and opfp on top of that. I think the state should fund a free childcare system for more than the first year, so mums can go back out to work part-time. More productivity, no childcare costs.

As for the 13 year olds during summer...perhaps a program where mums are employed as part-time public servants. I know a few ps's currently employed who literally use up their quota of sick days every year because it's tradition. Fire them, replace them with hard-working mums, and provide their places as temp places during the summer to students etc. That way students get summer/Christmas jobs, and mums get to be home during the times their kids are home, and the waster ps's have to actually reset their mindsets and earn a living.

goodmum

Not every 'other' parent pays maintenance.
Maintenance is NOT a given.

Klingon Hamlet

goodmum wrote: »

Not every 'other' parent pays maintenance.
Maintenance is NOT a given.

It's legally enforceable. You don't even need a solicitor. As long as a mum goes to court, dads have to pay it (quite right IMHO). Why claim off the state? (Not directed at you personally) When the money should come from both parents? 50/50 fair's fair, equal parenting and responsibility, money and time.

KaiLee

I am a lone parent of 2 under 3 and I think this is totally reasonable. I dont intend to be home all the time. Once the kids are in school I will have the oppurtunity to get work somewhere. Even if its Mc Donalds 20 hours a week will make me the same money as social pay. Its the responsible thing to do in my opinion. And if I can't find work there is job seekers allowance. I really don't think its a big deal?!

cynder

It was the 1990's and we lived in the middle of no where, no family or close friends within a 15 mile radius.

I think many 13 year olds are responsible enough its the parents who keep them wrapped in cotton wool that are the problem. kids grow up a lot quicker these days, you have 13 year olds climbing Everest yet you wont have him stay home alone.

If the parent cant trust the child to be left home alone than i would have to question the parenting methods. 13 year old throwing parties and going out stealing/causing trouble, not good parenting if you ask me!


I would trust my 10 year old to stay at home, but at 10 she is a bit too young, she is also diabetic so we have manage that, but by the time she turns 13 she will completely trustworthy and able to look after herself and hopefuly we will have trained her enough not to need us 24/7 to look after her blood sugars for her, she will start looking after them herself (with a little help from us).

also there is no legal minimum age in which a child can be left home alone, also at what age they can mind their younger siblings. I think 15 is around the age where they can be left to mind younger kids over night.

goodmum

Klingon, with respect, you have obviously never been to court with an ex to receive maintenance.
Yes it's legally enforceable, but alot of people still don't pay it. You should check out some of the single parent sites - there are thousands of custodial parents in arrears of maintenance at the moment, and there's damn all being done about it.
In my case, he brought me back to court to reduce it to 20pw.
My childcare alone is 125 pw.
Go figure.

Klingon Hamlet

goodmum wrote: »

I will send him to a school closer to home, so that when he doesn't need a childminder anymore (no clue what that age will be), he can come home for lunch and come home from school alone, and wait until I get in from work at 6.

This is where a state-funded childcare system---after-school study groups etc---would come into play. Kids could complete their homework, then get a schoolbus to their homes around 6ish. That way parents know their kids are safe, plus when they're home they're (hopefully) free of their homework.

KaiLee

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

It's legally enforceable. You don't even need a solicitor. As long as a mum goes to court, dads have to pay it (quite right IMHO). Why claim off the state? (Not directed at you personally) When the money should come from both parents? 50/50 fair's fair, equal parenting and responsibility, money and time.

I believe if you have 50/50 parenting shared custody.. then you are not entitled to lone parents allowance. Its true all parents should do the responsible thing and pay what is required but it sadly doesn't always happen. And if the other parent is unemployed there is very little the courts will do. Any maintenance a parent gives is deducted from other benefits eg. rent allownace.

goodmum

Btw, I agree with these proposed changes also, like I said, I fought hard to get out of the poverty trap that is SW.
I just think they need to include support for childcare and/or training for the parent who's returning to the workforce, having spent 13yrs at home.

KaiLee

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

This is where a state-funded childcare system---after-school study groups etc---would come into play. Kids could complete their homework, then get a schoolbus to their homes around 6ish. That way parents know their kids are safe, plus when they're home they're (hopefully) free of their homework.

This would be ideal. Its badly needed here!

seamus

goodmum wrote: »

Is 2010. There are many, many more dangers for children in this current age.

No there aren't. Your children have never been safer and less in danger than they are in 2010.

What would they do? (and don't say playstation!) Where would they go etc etc.

They would go out and play football with their friends or talk about boys, or whatever.

How many 13 year old children spend their summer holidays tied to their primary carer? When I was 13, summer holidays consisted of leaving the house at 10am, going to a friends' and sometimes not arriving home till dinnertime.

I understand how this can be an issue for fringe cases where both parent and child are separated from friends and family, but for the vast majority of people whose youngest is 13, their daytimes have little activity beyond housekeeping. My mother went to college when I was 12 specifically because as soon as I hit secondary school she found that she had little to do during the day beyond cleaning and washing.

Any mother who thinks a 13 year old needs them to wait on them hand and foot and be available to them 24/7, seriously needs to cut the apron strings. If you have a child with a disability, different story, but normal 13 year olds are off out of the house at every opportunity anyway.

cynder

seamus wrote: »

No there aren't. Your children have never been safer and less in danger than they are in 2010.
They would go out and play football with their friends or talk about boys, or whatever.

How many 13 year old children spend their summer holidays tied to their primary carer? When I was 13, summer holidays consisted of leaving the house at 10am, going to a friends' and sometimes not arriving home till dinnertime.

I understand how this can be an issue for fringe cases where both parent and child are separated from friends and family, but for the vast majority of people whose youngest is 13, their daytimes have little activity beyond housekeeping. My mother went to college when I was 12 specifically because as soon as I hit secondary school she found that she had little to do during the day beyond cleaning and washing.

Any mother who thinks a 13 year old needs them to wait on them hand and foot and be available to them 24/7, seriously needs to cut the apron strings. If you have a child with a disability, different story, but normal 13 year olds are off out of the house at every opportunity anyway.

Totally agree!

goodmum

So it's the mothers fault...again! For having the apron strings too tight....

A vast amount of single parent families in dublin have one child (there are stats on this, just cant find them at the minute) so the issue of them minding younger kids isn't necessarily relevant.
I work 27 miles from my home.
Because I would not leave my son when he's 13, alone for 8 hours a day, 25 miles away, I'm at fault?????
And the day I do it, and he burns the house down while smoking in his bedroom, I'm still at fault???

State funded aftershool care would be the ideal for those 13yr olds who aren't yet mature enough to fend for themselves.

seamus

goodmum wrote: »

So it's the mothers fault...again! For having the apron strings too tight....

Nope, I didn't say that, I didn't blame anyone for anything.

Because I would not leave my son when he's 13, alone for 8 hours a day, 25 miles away, I'm at fault?????
And the day I do it, and he burns the house down while smoking in his bedroom, I'm still at fault???

He could burn the house down smoking in his bedroom whether he's 13 or 33 and it could happen whether or not you're in the house. Yes, teenagers do make stupid decisions and do stupid things, that's what being a teenager is all about. To think that being at home all day is going to stop that is the height of naivety. They're not little helpless children anymore.

cynder

goodmum wrote: »

So it's the mothers fault...again! For having the apron strings too tight....

A vast amount of single parent families in dublin have one child (there are stats on this, just cant find them at the minute) so the issue of them minding younger kids isn't necessarily relevant.
I work 27 miles from my home.
Because I would not leave my son when he's 13, alone for 8 hours a day, 25 miles away, I'm at fault?????
And the day I do it, and he burns the house down while smoking in his bedroom, I'm still at fault???

State funded aftershool care would be the ideal for those 13yr olds who aren't yet mature enough to fend for themselves.

He could burn down the house with you at home, he could smoke in his bedroom while you at home. He could be smoking at school while your at home. kids are going to do what kids are going to do. there is a difference between having a fag and steeling a car.


All round Ireland there are going to be 13 year old with older siblings. there will be a few 13 year olds with no siblings. Dublin isn't the be all and end all, it the whole of Ireland.

I was sitting in my living room when my then 8 year old released the hand brake off the car and it crashed into the living room, we had to knock the front of the house and rebuild it. It happens. ( it was an accident, she pulled her schoolbag and it was wrapped round the handbrake)

The thing is i trust my lady. Accidents happen, if she set fire to the house, as long as she wasn't hurt no harm done. The insurance would pay for it. *She would not set fire to the house on purpose.

goodmum

I only mentioned Dublin because the stats are from Dublin figures:rolleyes:

ash23

I was listening to the radio (Ray D'Arcy) a couple of weeks ago and they were talking about a study which shows that 14 is the age when girls are hardest to parent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269512/Daughters-aged-14-years-old-difficult-parents-handle-study-reveals.html

(forgive me for the daily mail link, it's the only one I could find)

The general consensus for this on the show was agreement. A lot of people saying their daughters went off the rails at 14.

My daughter is 7 and a very good kid. But who knows what will happen between now and 14. Any number of things could have her go off the rails and not necessarily to do with bad parenting.

I would worry about her being home alone at 13/14/15 for 9 hours a day.

Even if she were the queit type, if other, rowdier older teens get wind of the fact that she has a free house all day, who knows what would happen.

Moomoo1

grindelwald wrote: »

I cant see any problem with a 13 year old left home alone during school holidays.

Im sure the 13 year old would have friends or family to visit and should be able to make themselves a sandwich or even a dinner. The 13 year old might even have older brothers and sisters (unless an only child).

what if they go and hang out on street corners? Or worse? And then the parents get labelled 'bad parents who couldn't bring up their kids properly?

Moomoo1

Max Power1 wrote: »

at the tax payers expense?
No way.

you think the taxes will be cut as a result of this?

dream on. The money 'saved' by selling single mothers down the river would either be end up with the rich or get squandered on some white elephant project...

goodmum

'what if they go and hang out on street corners? Or worse? And then the parents get labelled 'bad parents who couldn't bring up their kids properly?'

VERY good point.
I was trying to say that earlier, but couldn't articulate it quite like that.

How often I have read stories of 13yr olds committing some crime or other, or an accident where a young teenager was involved, and my first thoughts were 'Where were his/her parents'.

jam_mac_jam

goodmum wrote: »

'what if they go and hang out on street corners? Or worse? And then the parents get labelled 'bad parents who couldn't bring up their kids properly?'

VERY good point.
I was trying to say that earlier, but couldn't articulate it quite like that.

How often I have read stories of 13yr olds committing some crime or other, or an accident where a young teenager was involved, and my first thoughts were 'Where were his/her parents'.

You reckon when kids commit crime its because parents are at work, I think its more likely they are in the pub.

That comment really annoys me, I would love to be around for my child all the time however I cannot afford to, he is too old for a child minder. He is not out commiting crimes just because I am at work. I wouldnt make judgements on other people so you shouldnt on women who work.

goodmum

Im a mum who works full time. Im also a single mum. I don't judge women who work. Not at all. And I am for the proposed changes to the lone parents allowance - but provided there is a training period for women who havent been in the workforce for a long time, and a 'weaning-off' period in the lpa.

Do you not also wonder where the parents are when you hear or read about a young child committing a crime???
I have an 8yr old. I wouldnt be happy to leave him home alone when he's 13, until I get in from work, and particularly during the summer holidays.

Moomoo was correct in her point - parents of children who commit crimes at a young age get labelled as irresponsible. I wasn't judging single parents, or parents.
I was agreeing with Moomoo1s point, that if you leave your child alone at a young age, and the child commits a crime or is involved in anti-social behaviour etc - the parent (me), is judged as irresponsible by society in general.

ntlbell

Moomoo1 wrote: »

what if they go and hang out on street corners? Or worse? And then the parents get labelled 'bad parents who couldn't bring up their kids properly?

Do you really think they're not "hanging" around regardless of where the parents are?

Isn't that what kids do?

Moomoo1

ntlbell wrote: »

Do you really think they're not "hanging" around regardless of where the parents are?

Isn't that what kids do?

It's all about likelyhood. If a lone parent has to spend all his time earning money for the familly, he has less time for the child, and the child's more likely to have problems.

not guaranteed, just more likely.

and who'll get blamed if the teenager goes off the rails as a result of this government-enforced neglect? Oh yea, the parent, the same parent that wasn't actually able to spend most of the day with the said teenager.

ntlbell

Moomoo1 wrote: »

It's all about likelyhood. If a lone parent has to spend all his time earning money for the familly, he has less time for the child, and the child's more likely to have problems.

not guaranteed, just more likely.

and who'll get blamed if the teenager goes off the rails? Oh yea, the parent, the same parent that wasn't actually able to spend most of the day with the said teenager.

There is a huge amount of variables involved for a teenager going "off the rails"

The area they live, the school they go to, the friends they keep, the new friends they meet, their own persona's/confidence/self esteem levels.

A parent not being around during 1 set of school holidays while the child is 13 is a very very small part of the over all make up of a child going "off the rails"

This seems to be more of a "what would the neighbors think". Neighbors know the difference between an attentive well intended parent, and a parent who doesn't give a hoot, who leaves there 4/5/6/7/etc yr old out roaming the street day and night and when you bring to their attentions their child's behavior throw their eyes to heaven and tell you how good their little angel is and how it's none of your business.

bad parent != hard working parent.

Moomoo1

Of course it's about variables - I agree with you! All I am saying is that this legislation changes one of those variables in 'the wrong' direction.

ntlbell

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Of course it's about variables - I agree with you! All I am saying is that this legislation changes one of those variables in 'the wrong' direction.

Some will see it like that, some will see it as an opportunity to give their child some trust and responsibility.

Others will find alternative soloutions

and some will just complain about why they can't do A and why they can't do B and why doesn't the government do this for me and why doesn't the government do that for me.

Same as most things really.

mariaf24

I know of a girl who recently had a baby. She is single but on/off (suits her better to be off). She has just been given a spang new apartment for free (ok very little rent) and 2,000euro to 'furnish' it. And the idiot is boasting about it on facebook.
So for girls like her,i think this new bill is a good thing and it will stop encouraging other girls to get pregnant with the view to getting such an apartment with LPA.

Of course i am not saying other single parents are like this or receive such luxuries,far from it. But it does happen and something needs to be done. It is ridiculous it goes on.