What caught my eye however was this line:
Her father has had to quit his job to look after them until she is released.That's a typical modern-day response and generally it requires going on a benefit (so that's the assumption I will make.) This is part of the reason the number of males on the DPB is growing. Absent mothers.
In the past however the view would have been her father needs to stay in work as he is the only one capable of meeting the financial needs of his grandchildren. He'd be the one charged with putting bread and butter on the table. Not the state.
And the baby is one and the other two are at school for goodness sake. Have they heard of daycare?
(This has triggered a further thought. I have already raised a couple of loopholes regarding new work-testing regimes. Here's another. A mother who's added a child to her benefit has to take a job when that child turns one. In steps the father. He can now start on a caregiver's benefit free from work-testing until the child is 5. It'll happen.)
2 comments:
I don't understand why anyone would want to quit your job unless the P addicted mother has damaged the development of the child's brain, meaning that s/he needs more care?? Would you not go CRAZY going from work into that environment?
Question is why did the father leave his kids in her care in the first place? No signs of any issues or did he just not care?
Nice spotting of the loophole.
Sorry. I omitted the link. Sorted. As I read it the mother's partner (children's father?) is awaiting trial also. It's the maternal Grandfather quitting his job.
Post a Comment