Worlds Oldest Mother - Page 3

WillowTheWhisp · 25-01-2005, 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

So are you saying the old dear won't be able to play footy with her kid, yet an old boy of the same age can? I don't understand the logic here....mind, I've never been able to understand women's logic, anyway.

No, my point about this woman is that she is on her own. The men you refer to aren't. An elderly man on his own trying to bring up a child would probably concern me just as much as she does but he wouldn't have "conceived" the child and it's not a very likely scenario.

I doubt very much that she'll be able to play football or anything else with her daughter by the looks of her. Lets hope she improves and doesn't suffer too much longer from this dizzyness.

The Dad I know who I mentioned in the previous post does get involved in his children's lives. He plays with the younger ones and acts as chaufeur and general dogsbody for the older ones.

Tealeaf · 25-01-2005, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Oh no, . I know of one father who has been excluded from all contact with his daughter. He knows she is his daughter and she knows he is her Dad but the mother and grandmother refuse to permit any contact.

.

Is'nt there a law against this sort of thing?

WillowTheWhisp · 25-01-2005, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Is'nt there a law against this sort of thing?

I'm not sure where he'd stand legally as he isn't actually named on the birth certificate. They never lived together in a relationship. I suppose if he wanted to prove he is her father he could have a DNA test.

vorlon24 · 25-01-2005, 17:43

There is, but it seems that it is not enforced.

That's why people dress up as Batman and climb up Buckingham Palace

-pixie · 26-01-2005, 11:50

Plus, if you don't name the father you get all sorts of extra monetary benefits.

Tealeaf · 26-01-2005, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

Plus, if you don't name the father you get all sorts of extra monetary benefits.

Why??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????/

vorlon24 · 26-01-2005, 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

Plus, if you don't name the father you get all sorts of extra monetary benefits.

Not that I am aware of.

If you claim benefits (ie income support) your details get passed to the CSA who try and get money from the father, as their thinking is why pay income support when the father can pay instead.

In terms of benefits with absent fathers you get the income support and extra bits for the children, on top of the child benefit that all parents get (which is weird, isn't it!), plus a single parent allowance of about a fiver per week (unless its increased by now).

Oh, and don't forget satellite tv!!!

-pixie · 26-01-2005, 14:56

If you don't name/know the father you don't have to account for his earnings, which means you get more in benefits. Theres the Sure Start Maternity Grant of £500 for starters, plus all of the crap that a lot of organisations do is geared towards single mothers.
Plus you can screw extra money from the supposed father on top of your benefits.

Margaret Pilkington · 26-01-2005, 15:04

Seems quite a lucrative pursuit this motherhood lark.......me, I would prefer work anyday!

lettie · 26-01-2005, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Seems quite a lucrative pursuit this motherhood lark.......me, I would prefer work anyday!

Oh it's very lucrative. Which is why the same people come back again and again pregnant, all different dads, and these women are never infertile. The law has recently changed regarding fathers. It used to be that the father had no legal rights to make decisions about his child ie immunisations etc if he and the mother were unmarried, even if his name was on the birth certificate. That has now changed or is in the process of changing. A father whos name is not on the birth certificate would legally not be able to make those decisions regarding his child. This means that he could not consent to medical treatment for the child ie, decide whether or not to let the child have MMR vaccine for example. He would have no legal say in the matter.

-pixie · 26-01-2005, 15:36

Yep, if you have no morals it can be very lucrative.

My partner and I worked out we would actually be better off financially if we separated and I didn't work. I find it quite stupid - there seems to be no incentive to get off your arse and work, especially when you can just churn out babies like theres no tomorrow.

Tealeaf · 26-01-2005, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

If you don't name/know the father you don't have to account for his earnings, which means you get more in benefits. Theres the Sure Start Maternity Grant of £500 for starters, plus all of the crap that a lot of organisations do is geared towards single mothers.
Plus you can screw extra money from the supposed father on top of your benefits.

When you say "more in benefits" what you mean is a transfer payment by taxpayers such as myself to fund the recipients' (single mothers, one or multiple kids) lifestyle. The offspring of that single mother - male or female - will have a far higher probability of involvement in crime and social disorder and will invariably end up unmarried with their own multi-fathered offspring. And so the cycle continues.

Should'nt we cease this nonsense, now?

Margaret Pilkington · 26-01-2005, 15:42

It seems that some women see their role in life as perpetuators of the species, while you and I, the payer of taxes, support the lifestyle to which WE could easily become accustomed. Something not quite right there!

-pixie · 26-01-2005, 15:49

I fail to see why we have to fund some slappers lifestyle of dumping the kids on her mother at the weekend, going out, getting drunk and getting laid, plus the inevitable pregnancy. They are the ones having all the "fun", but we, the taxpayers are the ones getting screwed.

If you can't afford kids, don't have them. I have enough to fork out suporting my own family, without suporting some womans "right" to have five kids at the states expense. And THEN they bleat on that bringing up kids is a full time job and they shouldn't be made to work.

vorlon24 · 27-01-2005, 09:47

When I was working at the social security office there was a member of the female species who had a 4 month old baby, and was already pregnant with another one. She already had 1 or 2 others in addition to those I have already mentioned.

While working there I became a very cynical person.

Perhaps we should work in the same way as America does - benefits for 6 months, and then you're on your own.

Think of the money the country could save and spend on more worthwhile causes, like improved public transport, roads, health service, schools. The list goes on and on.