But it’s the kids that cop the consequences

A difficult situation was raised on The Nation this morning – a policy where mothers who don’t name the father of their children gets less benefit.

The Nation: Lisa Owen interviews Andrew Becroft

Lisa Owen: Well, seeing as we’re talking about benefits, there is more than 13,000, and they’re mainly women, who are currently getting their benefits docked because they name or won’t name the father of their child. That equates to 17,000 children who are missing out because that money’s not in the benefit every week. Do you think that that is a policy that puts kids at the centre?

Andrew Becroft: No. I don’t. In fact, we gave to this government three, what we thought, were doable improvements that would improve the position of children at the most disadvantaged end. That was one of them – to remove that obligation.

Lisa Own: So, you believe that those sanctions – because there’s an opportunity to do it, as that piece of legislation is under review – so you do you think that they should can that? That it’s too punitive for kids?

Andrew Becroft: In principle, I don’t think it’s child-centred or child-focused. And whatever the rationale for it, it disadvantages kids and it’s not good for children.

If the welfare of the children is paramount, then this seems a draconian and punitive policy that is certain to adversely affect the kids.

Of course children not knowing who their father is is not a great situation either.

Neither is it good that fathers don’t take responsibility for the care and provision of their children.

On Thursday the Herald had an article about this with an eye raising example:  Sanction hurting solo mums by reducing benefit for not naming father

Parents who don’t legally identify the other parent have $22 deducted every week for each child. A further $6 per family is added if it continues for over 13 weeks.

Auckland woman Stephanie, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, can’t prove the father of five of her 10 children. She gets $116 deducted from her benefit every week.

Wow on both counts – the lack of proof of fatherhood of 5 of ten children, and the $116 deduction.

She said the father of four of her children has denied he is their parent. The 33-year-old is currently pursuing court action to get a paternity test. The father of her youngest child claimed he hasn’t had the birth registration papers delivered to his house for him to sign.

Stephanie said it was like the Government was punishing her and her children, when the blame sat with the fathers.

Instead it was her and her babies that went without food and clothing and struggled to make ends meet.

“Caring for them isn’t hard, but financially it is. We can’t afford heaps of things.

A certain amount of the blame is certainly with the fathers. A father should take responsibility for the care of their children, full stop.

But I don’t like the threat of a reduction of a benefit being used as stick to try to force revealing who the parent is. It shouldn’t have to come to this (parents’ responsibility), but it is also not a good way to deal with it.

But a mother who has 10 children with what sounds like at least three fathers has to take a big dollop of responsibility too.

Men have to take some responsibility for birth control if they have sex.

But the ultimate responsibility has to be with the mother. Once a woman becomes pregnant it can be her sole responsibility whether she has the baby or not.

I think it’s fair to question the responsibility of having ten children and relying on the benefit to support them. It seems an extraordinary situation.

The mother has to take some responsibility for being a solo parent – as do the fathers.

A Ministry of Social Development spokeswoman said the policy was introduced in 1990 to encourage the other parent to take responsibility and contribute to the cost of raising their child.

“If a person does not apply for Child Support or identify the other paying parent, their benefit rate will be reduced.”

The spokeswoman said an exemption can be granted for reasons such as family violence concerns, the pregnancy being a result of sexual violation and insufficient evidence being available to establish who the other parent is.

But Cole said an exemption was difficult to obtain and meant the beneficiary had to disclose their sexual history to a lawyer and then retell that story in an open-plan Winz office.

I think that’s putting sole parents in an awful situation.

But some people – both mothers and fathers – put their children in awful situations through a lack of responsibility, restraint or contraception.

This is something that has no easy solutions. The kids are the ones who will suffer – from a lack of money and from a lack of parent.

 

Leave a comment

85 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  July 8, 2017

    This is a tricky one, but some of these women need to stop rooting the system. I know of one who will have a baby every 4 years or so, in order to continue getting the DPB and not have to go to work.

    The fathers need to take responsibility, but also the women need to take responsibility if they are deliberately getting pregnant and not telling the fathers – or don’t know who the fathers might be.

    But whether this is the way to do it or not I don’t know, the child is the one that suffers the consequence, but if the benefit isn’t cut then the women will just continue having babies with no responsibility expecting the taxpayer to pay for their children.

    This is a no-win situation for everyone, the more irresponsible mothers will continue in the cycle of having babies or the children will be punished for their mother’s lack of responsibility.

    Reply
    • Did you mean to use that word in your first sentence? It is probably quite appropriate, but another similar word may have also fitted there.

      Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  July 8, 2017

        I thought the same thing pg. I’m going with the latter option

        Reply
      • Missy

         /  July 8, 2017

        no, it was a type, I meant rorting, sorry, it seems that my auto correct did that and I didn’t notice.

        Reply
        • Missy

           /  July 8, 2017

          *typo

          God darn auto correct!! I really have to work out how to turn it off.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 8, 2017

            Yep, I’ve turned mine off on the phone. Too many nasty or annoying mistakes. I prefer a simple typo to a total misrepresentation.

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 8, 2017

            Missy if you can find your settings icon it’ll probably be in there somewhere. On my iPad it comes up in the sub-menu when you click on “Keyboard”.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  July 8, 2017

              “Keyboard” is in “General”.

    • Conspiratoor

       /  July 8, 2017

      Missy, how do you think it would go if the bene after the first child to a single non working breeder is made conditional on a quarterly contraceptive injection. Surely as a society we are at the tipping point where the gene pool is being severely compromised and some hard decisions have to be made

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  July 8, 2017

        To be honest I am not sure how I feel about that suggestion, I am not hugely in favour of a lot of Government interference in people’s personal lives, and I don’t like the idea of the Government forcing these kind of decisions on people who have not broken any laws, also I am not sure it will be welcomed too much in NZ either.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  July 8, 2017

          Missy, your comment about government interference in people’s lives .. most of these women expect to live off the government from cradle to grave. This option should be made less appealing as a lifestyle choice.

          Reply
        • Conspiratoor

           /  July 8, 2017

          You could argue a government interferes was soon as it takes your hard earned tax and uses it to encourage rampant breeding

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  July 8, 2017

            The average length of someone being on the DPB is surprisingly short-but, of course, averages are often misleading. I so often hear people who think that because the higher infant mortality in days gone by reduced the average life expectancy, people lived very short lives generally.

            In cases of rape or incest, I could see a reason for not naming the father-but there must be some way around this, Have it ‘sealed’ ?

            I remember the news item on this some time ago, when one woman seemed to think it grossly unreasonable to expect her to know who the father/s of her children was/were-her attitude was the same as mine would be if the council expected me to know the ancestry of my dog. How could she remember who she’d been with five years ago ? Blimey. It could have been anyone

            Missy, there was a real hoohah when a BUDGET ADVISOR-yes, a budget advisor-was revealed to be telling women to pop out a new baby every 18 months or so to avoid the obligation to look for work and to keep their income coming.

            I can’t remember how I turned spellcheck off, but Google will know.

            Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 8, 2017

    Everyone cops the consequences. This is sequential parenting failure down a generational line. More money won’t stop it, merely encourage, fund and reward it. The State as father is a failure.

    Reply
  3. MaureenW

     /  July 8, 2017

    What is the problem with promoting the new rules and bringing them in after 12 months?
    People say doing this would only hurt the children but they’re already on a hiding to nothing being born to mothers who don’t know who their fathers are. Another thought is that any benefit for the children is provided by way of vouchers that can’t be squandered by their mothers.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 8, 2017

      Yes, the parents are ‘hurting the children’ by having them in the circumstances.

      The news said that the DPB (and other benefits) were raised last year for the first time in FORTY-THREE YEARS. This is a leetle hard to believe.

      I couldn’t have too much sympathy for the young woman who has rejected two or three lots of housing, has a mother with what looked like a largish house (they are estranged, but that is their problem) and thinks that it’s her right, backed up by the man whose name escapes me from a poverty action group, to have the kind of housing that would be her first choice.

      One must wonder why nobody would offer her a place to stay, not even her mother.

      Reply
  4. Tipene

     /  July 8, 2017

    My only concern is that the sanction isn’t large enough to achieve its aim.

    If WINZ is going to sanction, then SANCTION, don’t dance around the edges of same.

    50% benefit sanction for not naming the father of the first child, and increments of 5% thereafter for every subsequent child for a non-named father.

    If the kids cop the consequences, then it will be on the mothers head, not the states, and not the taxpayer.

    This is the only way to fish out the phantom fathers who exist in the mist, paying around half in cash to the mother’s on the condition they don’t name them.

    Unfortunate yes for those women who had a one night stand and got knocked up, and a very powerful message for those women considering, as Missy so eloquently put it “to root the system”.

    Might also raise the bar a little on the types of feral partners these women choose to regularly inseminate them.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 9, 2017

      Wouldn’t it be enough to cut off the amount that the ‘man’ would be paying ?

      I had forgotten that incest and rape and violence are grounds for this to be waived-fair enough.

      I wish that the film of the mother reacting as if it was ridiculous to expect her to know who the father was (I can’t remember of how many of her children) had been played again. Geez, how would I know ? That was x years ago.

      Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 8, 2017

    How many of these cases are there where the mother knows who the father is but won’t identify him because she doesn’t want to share custody or “ownership” of the child?

    How many more of these cases will there be when women can’t find a life partner who will commit to them before their fertility window closes so grab any male to do the job so they can have a child?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 8, 2017

      A magazine had an article about a woman who wanted a baby but not a partner, so chose a man to be the unwitting sperm donor. He believed that they had a relationship and that she was on the pill, and was hurt when she suddenly dumped him. This was because she was pregnant and no longer needed him.

      He somehow found out about the baby and reacted as anyone would. She couldn’t see why he was angry and distressed to hear that he was a father of a child whose life he was no part of-not least because of possible repercussions when he had to tell a new partner that he already had a child.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  July 8, 2017

        Yes. They never think of the repercussions when, say, their child wants to come looking for their father, or their child turns out to have a serious medical condition for which a genetic history is important to establish. Putting their own desire to “just be a mum” ahead of their child’s future interests & chances for a happy, healthy life is a recipe for stress & misery for both of them, & for others around them. Not least because they assume state assistance rules will never change. But they will.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  July 9, 2017

          There was no question of state assistance here, but the child will want to know who its father is some day.

          The father is being denied the right to know his own child. Not to mention being made to look a fool and being betrayed by someome with whom he thought he had a long-term relationship but who was using him as an unwitting sperm donor. A young couple in the UK found by sheer chance that they had the same father. They broke up, of course-and she wondered if that was why she lost their baby-and were horrified at the thought that they had been committing incest and not knowing it. They still loved each other,, but knew that they could never be together, and the whole thing was a horrible mess.

          Reply
  6. Your breed you feed him. I paid my child support – never tried to avoid. I had my son stay regularly with me – every weekend and then when older up to 5-6 nights a fortnight. Never shirked school fees, medical costs, optician, clothes etc etc.

    These deliberate rorts of the system, where some woman refuses to name the father and also relentlessly breed on the dpb piss me off.

    People say woman don’t deliberate breed to go on the dpb but sorry that is a lie. I know two woman personally who have done exactly that – and know of another dozen or so in my home town who have as well. Call it anecdata if you want – but it is fact just first hand observation of the social experiment that we call the DPB

    The DPB was created to support mothers abandoned by their partners. It was not intended as a life time benefit for do nothing but getting pregnant to any man who is handy.

    The DPB has been perverted – and the worst thing is it gets defended by half wits rolling out the reproductive rights argument. Fair enough you have a right to breed no question, but you don’t have the right to expect everyone else to pay for it.

    you breed’em, you feed’em.

    Time for the DPB rules to be tightened up. You go one the dpb – no more cash for any additional children had while on the dpb.

    Actually how about NO cash in hand when on the dpb fullstop – you live in a state funded house, state pays the bills, and the state contracts a food delivery to your door. You and the kids are feed, clothed, housed and medical & education costs are covered. But as a solo parent you have NO Money from the state to spend how you see fit. You want discretionary income – go earn it…

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 8, 2017

      I have heard that it’s often a case of not needing to be careful, as the DPB is there if you need it. But I knew of three girls who had 14 children between by different fathers (one had twins).

      I don’t know why the DPB’s name was changed, everyone still calls it that !

      It doesn’t help when people like that Green MP say that single mothers are heroes. Why not heroines ??? Yes, some are. My mother was. I didn’t then appreciate just how much. She left an intolerable marriage in a foreign country and made a life for us, didn’t ask for help from the family back home, just got on with it.

      Reply
      • Corky.

         /  July 8, 2017

        ”It doesn’t help when people like that Green MP say that single mothers are heroes. Why not heroines ??? ”

        You are taking the piss, right?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  July 8, 2017

          No. I forget who it was, alas. She was (mistakenly, possibly) responding to Brian Tamaki rather than letting his stupid remarks about single women echo in the contemptuous silence they deserved. All she did was give him more free publicity.

          Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  July 8, 2017

          I can’t see why it’s not sexist to give women masculine names like hero and landlord.

          Reply
          • Corky.

             /  July 8, 2017

            Men need to think about making ships transgender, and stop calling then ‘she.’

            Reply
            • Corky.

               /  July 8, 2017

              * them*

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 8, 2017

              Then the ship would be ‘they’, which sounds very odd.

              When people object to ‘chair’ being used of a person, they obviously don’t know that this was not a new usage in the 1870s-get used to it ! Then there are those who whinge about ‘gay’-again, get used to it, it’s been around for almost a century and in general use for 50 years. Luddites.

            • Corky.

               /  July 8, 2017

              ”Then the ship would be ‘they’, which sounds very odd.’

              Exactly. Sometimes weird aces correct (?) usage.

    • Gezza

       /  July 8, 2017

      I dunno the actual numbers but there are definitely those at the bottom end of the educational scale usually who decide their career is to just be a mum & let the state pay for it. I too know a couple. Both have different dads for their kids. The dads don’t live with them. Neither of them ever intended that.

      Had an interesting discussion with a taxi driver from Porirua on the way in to Welly Hospital when I was banned from driving for a month a coupla months ago. I’m not sure how the subject actually came up – it started off being about why did he do this job, how many hours, any kids etc – but it somehow led into young women who don’t want to work they just want to leave school, get pregnant, have babies & live on the DPB.

      I said since the rules had tightened up I expected there were a lot fewer of those around because life was pretty tough in those cases now. No mate, he said, there’s plenty of them still about. I get a few of them in the back seat quite often. 15, 16, going home after a night on the town. Saying to each other, “I’m not going to work. Why bother working your guts out for next to nothing in a boring job. I can’t wait to get pregnant & go on the DPB. That’s quite a good life really – it pays just as well” – with at least one or more of them agreeing.

      Oh, I said. That actually does surprise me. I suppose they’re … um … Polynesian?

      “No mate! They’re pakehas.”

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 8, 2017

        Where do they get taxi money from?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 8, 2017

          Buggered if I know. I’m driving again & me & Welly Hospital have had enuff of each other anyway Al. (Actually they were pretty good. Two doctors were even Kiwis.)
          If I ever see that taxi particular pakeha taxi driver again, & I remember, I’ll ask him.

          Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  July 8, 2017

        Dorty worked for a while in a maori health clinic. She had her eyes opened. A revolving door of sexually active teen girls with a multitude of mental and physical problems. Her default option was a 4 month contraceptive injection. Bizarrely they then returned to school having had ‘the block’, strutting around and wearing it like a badge of honour

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 8, 2017

          Whereabouts was the clinic, & out of curiosity, your last sentence – was that how she out it?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 8, 2017

            Damn damn damn. On the FiP, “cancel” never works once ya hit Post Comment.

            * put it!

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 8, 2017

            Gotta go. Cute Chinese wifey of Shane next door texted to say are you coming to the bar with us? Gotta whack down some Chinese smorgasboard, get me black jeans, black jacket, AB’s World Cup hat & scarf, & gird up for a heavy night watching her 👙 , him 👖 & occasionally the AB’s 🕴 🕶.

            Reply
          • Conspiratoor

             /  July 8, 2017

            Whangarei, why?

            Not her exact words, she didn’t say ‘strut’. I sat down with her one evening and took notes while she took me on a journey. I meant to put it all in a blog post because it is a warts and all from the front line that other demographics might find interesting

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 8, 2017

            Whangarei – why?
            Just curious. Different iwi / hapu / whanu = totally different nation, different, kaupapa, tikanga, kaupapa. I know never to lump them all together & assume they’re all the same.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  July 8, 2017

              *Last kaupapa should’ve said – whakapapa.
              Was the health clinic rural or urban setting?

            • Conspiratoor

               /  July 8, 2017

              urban but I think you will find similar dysfunction in many rural areas in the north

            • Gezza

               /  July 8, 2017

              Could be. They might share some characteristics with those young pakeha sheilas the taxi driver was talking about.

            • Gezza

               /  July 8, 2017

              From your notes, c, how many of them did the block strut and how many didn’t?

            • Conspiratoor

               /  July 8, 2017

              Agreed G. Maori don’t have a monopoly on this

            • Conspiratoor

               /  July 8, 2017

              G I sense youre taking the piss but she has just turned up. What should I ask her?

            • Gezza

               /  July 8, 2017

              No, I’m not taking the piss. I’m interested in the subject. I’m gathering information.

              What was your primary purpose for recording this information?

              For your daughter – her answer ti the question I asked you would be good to know.

              Also,

              I think this is a problem that needs a solution. How big a problem does she think it is, & what does she think is or are the best long-term solutions?

              And

              Are her views on Maori & their culture the same as yours?

              I’ll check back later. Off to the pub shortly.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  July 8, 2017

              Will do, before you go which problem are you referring to?

            • Gezza

               /  July 8, 2017

              Too many children the girl shouldn’t have & can’t raise without totally unrelated taxpayers paying to care for them & their children.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  July 8, 2017

              Halftime. Order has been restored.
              Why recorded? Seek first to understand …and then to be understood. Not prepared to pursue 2nd question. Early intervention. Role models assigned to buddy with most vulnerable. Exposure, field trips to varsities, unitech, naval academies etc. Her views on maori issues differ from mine, she has a natural affinity that I lack. Kickoff. Cheers,c

        • Gezza

           /  July 8, 2017

          @ c

          Thanks for that: Just summarising to make sure I’ve these correct, plus some more queries:

          Q1. What was your primary purpose for recording this information?
          A. Why recorded? Seek first to understand …and then to be understood.
          what were you trying to understand?

          *What exactly do you want people to now understand from what you said?
          ………….

          Q2. From your notes, c, how many of them did the block strut and how many didn’t
          A. Not prepared to pursue 2nd question.

          *Unclear. She wasn’t, or you weren’t?
          What I was trying to establish was whether she told you that all of the Maori girls you spoke of proudly did the block strut, as you imply above, or whether one maybe did, or two – and you have personally extrapolated that out well beyond what she said?
          ………….

          Q3. Too many children the girl shouldn’t have & can’t raise without totally unrelated taxpayers paying to care for them & their children. I think this is a problem that needs a solution. How big a problem does she think it is, & what does she think is or are the best long-term solutions?
          A. Early intervention. Role models assigned to buddy with most vulnerable. Exposure, field trips to varsities, unitech, naval academies etc.

          *Who should be doing the interventions, & who should the role models be? Maori/pakeha? Anybody else in particular she was thinking of?
          …………
          Q4. Are her views on Maori & their culture the same as yours?
          A. Her views on maori issues differ from mine, she has a natural affinity that I lack.

          *Why does she have a natural affinity you lack, & what do you differ over?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 8, 2017

            PS: You said:
            Not her exact words, she didn’t say ‘strut’. I sat down with her one evening and took notes while she took me on a journey. I meant to put it all in a blog post because it is a warts and all from the front line that other demographics might find interesting

            What a great idea. PG’s always looking for Guest Posts. I’d be very interested to see a Guest Post from you.

            Reply
            • Conspiratoor

               /  July 9, 2017

              G, as soon as I told her I wanted to put her thoughts on a pubic forum she closed up and I received a bit of a lecture. As a young gp starting out in a career, i can sort of understand it. She did however offer up a couple of prominent northern maoris who are developing new initiatives to fight this thing and whom you would find interesting. One was Lance Sullivan, have a look at the work he is doing

            • Gezza

               /  July 9, 2017

              Not sure about her old man yet but I think I like her.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 9, 2017

              Er, Con, what sort of forum was that, again ?

  7. Geoffrey

     /  July 8, 2017

    How many childless couples would leap to adopt and then lovingly raise the children of these negligent self-indulgent birth parents?

    Reply
    • Corky.

       /  July 8, 2017

      Many if they would let Europeans adopt Maori babies.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 8, 2017

      Many, but they have to be open adoptions & dysfunctional, drug & alcohol-addicted mums turning up all the time in a mess can totally disrupt the child’s life & happiness.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 8, 2017

        Plus there can be major issues for a big physical Maori kid growing up with some skinny little pakeha adoptive parents even with the old closed adoptions. I saw it go badly wrong with one of my children’s schoolmates.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 8, 2017

          Yes. I can imagine. What went wrong Alan?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 8, 2017

            Jail for murder before 21. Was a fish out of water.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  July 9, 2017

              I don’t understand what the downticks are for. All we are doing is speaking of our experiences & perspectives as pakeha. How can that be wrong when you love children & just want them to grow up safely to have happy lives? And you are trying to understand why, when Maori want the same, we don’t understand where & how differ on how to do this? We care. We want to help. We don’t know how.

          • Gezza

             /  July 9, 2017

            PS: Cute Chinese Wifey referred to above didn’t come with us because her boss rang & she has to start early at work tomorrow morning, already in her cute dressing gown. Shane & I went to the bar alone & enjoyed watching it – not depressed, but not exactly happy with the result, btw.

            Anyway – I came home after the game, & Shane stayed to chat to some dregs of society there that he knows & who get more intelligent & more interesting the more he drinks.

            Just got some texts from said CCW – he’d promised her he would come home straight after the game so he could drive her to work. So after more texts I drove back there to bring him home – this lady of his is definitely a keeper. Drank the rest of his jug & said righto, come with me mate, and he said No! Some drunk chick there said to me I’ve met his wife – she’s nice. I said you probably mean his ex-wife, & came home. Texted CCW & said he wouldn’t come with me – but I reckon he’ll be home soon.

            She just texted, “he’s home and he’s all fucking”. I texted “yep” and a bit of advice about not killing him. I’ll explain more to her about kiwi jokers who’re newkyweds on Monday when he’s at work. I can’t hear anything but they’ve got double glazing.

            God people are funny. I just love people!

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 9, 2017

              I know G. Why do they make simple things so messy?

            • Gezza

               /  July 9, 2017

              What’s even funnier Al is Shane & me, bonding on the walk round to Sports Bar as we rurally origined blokes do, was a bit miffed with her. He said, “Tell me this Gez. If I lucked out there, like you say, how come- she cooks, I do the dishes – so tonight, I cook & I end up doing the dishes?”

              I didn’t have an answer, so I distracted him as I do when I don’t have the answer yet. But my bet is, he’s hurt about that so he’s angry, so that’s why he didn’t come home straight away like he promised. Her text when he got home actually says “he’s very fucking”. I texted, Yup. He won’t be happy with me :-).I offered to drive her to work if he wasn’t up to it. She last texted: “tomorrow morning I wont go to work because I can’t sleep now”.

              I know Shane, he’s just pig-headed like me. We’ll be ok. But I need to tell her she should’ve done the dishes. He’s angry cos she hurt him too! They do luv each other – I can see it all the time. Newlyweds! I remember all this. My missus was so unreasonable too! 😀

            • Gezza

               /  July 9, 2017

              I’ll bet he’s sleeping on the sofa! 😬

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 9, 2017

              I gave myself,a simple rule. If it annoys you say so there and then or forget it.

              Maybe she wasn’t happy about him going out without her to begin with. If you don’t talk you won’t know.

            • Gezza

               /  July 9, 2017

              I gave myself,a simple rule. If it annoys you say so there and then or forget it.

              Exactly! They haven’t figured this out yet! It shouldn’t be too far off now. I think I can help – just have to be a bit tactful. 😬

  8. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 8, 2017

    How many childless couples would pay for a surrogate mother if they were allowed to?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 8, 2017

      An Australian doctor was in trouble with the law because she was matching up girls who were pregnant and would have had abortions with couples who were childless. The money that changed hands was simply to cover the girls’ expenses, it wasn’t in any way baby-buying. Babies were let to live-girls didn’t have abortions-couples had children. But oh dear, Laura Norder couldn’t have that.

      Alan, the problems would be that the DPB users who regard it as a right wouldn’t want a one-off payment,

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 8, 2017

        I think the law is just plain bad and harmful. Far too many professional and amateur ethicists trying to run other peoples’ lives. Let those involved make their own decisions and contracts. As it is they falsely claim to be protecting the child whilst ignoring millions of children in bad homes and families under the present arrangements.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  July 9, 2017

          There must be some protective laws. Would you want anyone at all to be able to adopt a child-even kiddy-fiddlers or porn makers ? I would never want to go back to the days when it was possible to buy a child for free labour or worse.

          The problem is that, of course, it’s not known that a home is bad until it IS.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 9, 2017

            It’s normal to convict after the crime is committed rather than before. I don’t see much difference between child molesters growing their own or using a surrogate. Same crime.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 9, 2017

              No, but checks on would-be adopters lessen the risk to some extent. Nothing can eliminate it, or this would have happened. But if Mr and Mrs Smith apply to adopt a child and are found to have a record for child abuse and child molestation, little Johnny would not be given to them.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 9, 2017

              You don’t think the child’s mother might usually be a more rigorous vetting driver than a bureaucrat?

  9. Patzcuaro

     /  July 9, 2017

    First thing, why would anyone have 10 kids. In the past the level of child mortality was higher and there was no reliable form of contraception. Where would the world be if every couple had 10 kids that all survived, then they had 10 kids that all survived. Very soon it would be standing room only on the planet. So even if you can afford 10 kids, it is a recipe for human extinction.

    The benefit was originally designed to help women who ended up on there own with children, this I support. But I don’t support the ability of women to have more children while on the benefit. One extra might be a mistake but more than that and it is irresponsibility.

    How can you not know who 5 out of 10 fathers are? Where is her personal responsibility. A lot more effort needs to go into guard rails at the top of the cliff rather than an ambulance at the bottom.

    Reply
  10. Glenn Rust

     /  July 9, 2017

    I think it works like this. Dad on $70k Pays between $170 – $200 per week for one child. But that money goes back to the Government where the mother is on a benefit. So don’t name the father and lose $22 per week but he then backhands the mother $100 with him saving $70 and the mother being better off by $80.

    Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  July 9, 2017

      Makes sense, multiplied in this case by 5 and you have a cottage industry.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 9, 2017

      How does it work if dad’s only on a benefit too?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 9, 2017

        If they officially live together they get less money. If they have four kids you might think they are living together.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 9, 2017

          Not necessarily. These days regular booty calls are pretty common, rather than the hassle of having some regular partner & other parent who’s useless for anything else hanging around cramping your style & using up your limited resources.

          Reply
      • Anonymous Coward

         /  July 9, 2017

        If the father is on a benefit then he pays the minimum ( was $15 a week a few years ago, possibly still the same now) and the Mother gets the $22 quoted above.

        Reply
  1. But it’s the kids that cop the conesquences — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s