Is This Right?

Daroxtar

My missus works in a hospital and one of the filipino nurses adopted a baby last june in the phillipines. She went over, signed the papers and came straight back here WITHOUT THE BABY. She left the kid to her parents. Now she's starting her 6 month maternity leave in a few weeks time.

I believe maternity leave is to help the mother recover after childbirth and to help the baby bond with the mother. It is also to allow for sleepless night and the usual upset to the mothers daily rhythms. This woman hasn't gone through childbirth and apart from jetlag she has nothing to recover from. By leaving the child with her parents she has made no attempt to bond with it. Now that the child is nearly a year old it is well setled.

TBH as far as i'm concerned, the baby is not hers at all and realistically has nothing t do with her.

She is claiming childrens allowance here for a child she essentially bought and then abandoned.

I dont care if the woman is filipino, irish or martian, its abuse of the system as far as i'm concerned.

As a final thought, she's starting her maternity leave in a few weeks but is flying to the states for a months holiday at the start of it before she heads home to "her baby". She does not intend bringing the baby back to ireland with her after her leave.

Do you think that this is right?

My name is URL

She legally adopted a child which entitles her to leave... How does your missus know exactly what her plans are? Sounds like bitching and hearsay to me tbh, she could report her and see what happens =p

Tech3

sounds right to me

MarkR

I saw an episode of Top Gear from the Philipenes. It was quite enjoyable.

Turd Ferguson

A Filipino nurse from the Phillipines


EDIT: Just checked and that is the correct spelling...how odd

Daroxtar

Upward Spiral wrote: »

She legally adopted a child which entitles her to leave... How does your missus know exactly what her plans are? Sounds like bitching and hearsay to me tbh, she could report her and see what happens =p

They're friends and she told her. Reporting her will do no good as she is entitled to her time off to do as she likes with it. I'm not here to argue over the legality of it, I just think that the whole scenario is morally wrong.

javaboy

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

A Filipino nurse from the Phillipines


EDIT: Just checked and that is the correct spelling...how odd

I was just about to correct you on that but you got your edit in in time. I just thought everybody should know that.

Daroxtar

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

A Filipino nurse from the Phillipines


EDIT: Just checked and that is the correct spelling...how odd

Not the same crowd that St. paul was writing his letters to either!

AnonoBoy

Does your Missus work with Madonna?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wasn't he the parish priest in Killinascully...?

Fratton Fred

If she is married, her husband would be entitled to Paternity leave as well, 2 weeks paid and upt o 6 weeks unpaid.

It is European Legislation I believe, one which Ireland, along with the rest of the EU chose to adopt.

seanybiker

MarkR wrote: »

I saw an episode of Top Gear from the Philipenes. It was quite enjoyable.

was that the one on the vespas. Jeremy was funny crashing on his. Top gear rules.

Op your missus mate sounds like a right ould eejit. Anyways I thought there be some kind of follow up after adopting a child, not just giving her the child and never checking up on the yoke.

Daroxtar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If she is married, her husband would be entitled to Paternity leave as well, 2 weeks paid and upt o 6 weeks unpaid.

It is European Legislation I believe, one which Ireland, along with the rest of the EU chose to adopt.

Yes, the hubby works in the hospital too and he's all excited about finally getting to see the grand canyon

biko

One slipped though a loophole, no biggie. Although it's mad how she left the child back in the Flippins, what's the point in adopting then?

Daroxtar

seanybiker wrote: »

was that the one on the vespas. Jeremy was funny crashing on his. Top gear rules.

Op your missus mate sounds like a right ould eejit. Anyways I thought there be some kind of follow up after adopting a child, not just giving her the child and never checking up on the yoke.

Thats my point of view exactly. As far as i can see its pure bull.

seanybiker

Daroxtar wrote: »

Yes, the hubby works in the hospital too and he's all excited about finally getting to see the grand canyon

She adopted the child. She dont have a grand canyon yet

Quazzie

seanybiker wrote: »

was that the one on the vespas. Jeremy was funny crashing on his. Top gear rules.

Op your missus mate sounds like a right ould eejit. Anyways I thought there be some kind of follow up after adopting a child, not just giving her the child and never checking up on the yoke.

That was Vietnam ya big racist!

Gummy Panda

Magnus wrote: »

One slipped though a loophole, no biggie. Although it's mad how she left the child back in the Flippins, what's the point in adopting then?

Child allowance is a lot for a flippino back home. Easily clothe and feed the child.

Nodin

Daroxtar wrote: »

My missus (......)is right?

She's here to work to support the child and whatever family she has over there. They all do it, and they don't particularily enjoy having to. I'm at a loss as to why you're getting your knickers in a twist.

Quazzie

Nodin wrote: »

She's here to work to support the child and whatever family she has over there. They all do it, and they don't particularily enjoy having to. I'm at a loss as to why you're getting your knickers in a twist.

Because she is obviously abusing the system. It is not her child, from an outsiders point of view it looks like she adopted it just to avail of the maternity leave. Using the system when neccesary is perfectly fine, thats what its there for. Abusing it isn't.

Daroxtar

From my perspective, she bought a baby and then abandoned it. She has no bond with it and she shouldn't be getting maternity leave because she has had nothing to do with the upbringing of the child other than sign the papers. By my reckoning she has shown no desire to have the child at all.

If a person was genuine about having a child then you'd imagine she'd want to spend as much time as possible with it. I doubt a genuine couple would be so happy with their purchase that they'd dump it with granny for the most formative years of its life.

P.S. Nodin, just looking at your edit of my original post " my missus...is right". LOL She always is!!:D

oleras

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If she is married, her husband would be entitled to Paternity leave as well, 2 weeks paid and upt o 6 weeks unpaid.

It is European Legislation I believe, one which Ireland, along with the rest of the EU chose to adopt.

You sure of this ? Links ?

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Daroxtar wrote: »

They're friends and she told her. Reporting her will do no good as she is entitled to her time off to do as she likes with it. I'm not here to argue over the legality of it, I just think that the whole scenario is morally wrong.

I agree with the OP, if the woman is claiming entitlements than she should be caring for the child.
It sounds a bit dodgy, she adopts a child, she has never seen the child, she has no relationship to the child, yet she is paid to care for the child and is getting time off to care for / bond with the child and she is using it to go on holiday.
Even if she was sending that money home to the Philippines, how is anyone to know the child is getting any benefit from that money.

If she adopted the child - she should be the primary carer for that child, then she should be eligible to receive benefits.

Terry

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Because she is obviously abusing the system. It is not her child, from an outsiders point of view it looks like she adopted it just to avail of the maternity leave. Using the system when neccesary is perfectly fine, thats what its there for. Abusing it isn't.

I honestly do not believe that someone would go to th lengths of adopting a child just to get maternity leave. It makes no sense.

6.—(1) Subject to this Act, an employee who is the natural or adoptive parent of a child shall be entitled to leave from his or her employment, to be known and referred to in this Act as "parental leave", for a period of 14 working weeks to enable him or her to take care of the child

Source......http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0030/sec0006.html#zza30y1998s6

Edit: Terry's right, (dunno how i missed Quazzie's post 1st time round) to suggest that someone would "buy" a child for the sake of getting time off work is ludicrous.

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Terry wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that someone would go to th lengths of adopting a child just to get maternity leave. It makes no sense.

For example:
Maybe the adoption is in her name only and her sister is actually the one taking care of the child back in the Philippines.
That way - her sister gets to keep the child and receives a nice child benefits payment every month...

€200/month (or whatever C.B. is) would go a loooong way in the Philippines...

Daroxtar

Terry wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that someone would go to th lengths of adopting a child just to get maternity leave. It makes no sense.

And i dont think she did it for that reason either, but i don't think she has shown any commitment to the child and i dont think she should get maternity leave. Anybody who thinks sending money home is parenting.... i dont even need to elaborate.

Quazzie

Terry wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that someone would go to th lengths of adopting a child just to get maternity leave. It makes no sense.

It is pretty clear she is in no need of maternity leave and whilst it might not be her sole purpose for adopting the child it is certainly a side effect she is abusing to the best of her power.

Quazzie

Deleted User wrote: »

Source......http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0030/sec0006.html#zza30y1998s6

Edit: Terry's right, (dunno how i missed Quazzie's post 1st time round) to suggest that someone would "buy" a child for the sake of getting time off work is ludicrous.

It doesn't state there is they are entitle to any state benefit as is the case in Maternity leave.

Nodin

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Because she is obviously abusing the system. It is not her child, from an outsiders point of view it looks like she adopted it just to avail of the maternity leave.

By which astute logic I could select any random pregnant woman and accuse her of same.

Daroxtar wrote:

Anybody who thinks sending money home is parenting.... i dont even need to elaborate.

You don't seem too up on the lengths people have to go to to survive in this world.

Daroxtar

Hail 2 Da Chimp wrote: »

For example:
Maybe the adoption is in her name only and her sister is actually the one taking care of the child back in the Philippines.
That way - her sister gets to keep the child and receives a nice child benefits payment every month...

€200/month (or whatever C.B. is) would go a loooong way in the Philippines...

I hadn't even thought about that. Until now.

Turd Ferguson

Terry wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that someone would go to th lengths of adopting a child just to get maternity leave. It makes no sense.

If they leave the child in the Phillipines (where the cost of living is very low) then she can get child support here. She'd only need to send 1/4 of the child support monies back because I'm sure that would cover any expenses her parents have.

Daroxtar

Nodin wrote: »

By which astute logic I could select any random pregnant woman and accuse her of same.



You don't seem too up on the lengths people have to go to to survive in this world.

1/ The pregnant woman is carrying the child and should be entitled to some form of maternity leave, if only to allow her recover from childbirth. The woman in this case has gone through none of that.

2/ If its so tough to survive then why buy a new baby?

the_dark_side

Magnus wrote: »

One slipped though a loophole, no biggie. Although it's mad how she left the child back in the Flippins, what's the point in adopting then?

The point of adopting is obvious to me, 'adopt' a child in your home country... as in sign the papers and all the legalities.. leave the child with guardians (original family) and come to some arrangement where the €€'s claimed for the child in Ireland can be divided between the adoptive parent and the childs present guardians... probably goes on paying for a quick holiday to USA etc etc. WE ARE BEING RODE

oleras

Deleted User wrote: »

Source......http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0030/sec0006.html#zza30y1998s6

Why did you quote this ? If it was for me, my query was the 2 weeks paid leave.

beth-lou

All adoptive mothers are entitled to the same maternity leave as birth mothers, that is the law and it is there to ensure that there is adequate time for mother and child to bond and adapt. The majority of adoptive parents legitimally need this time for both them and the child.

I am not sure about your wifes friends situation as we only have your word and hers. But from a legal point of view she is entitled to the time off.
Since she is not a member f the EU I would imagine that she will not be paid while on her leave. I would also imagine, that she is not entitled to child benefit either, as she is not a member of the EU, although the fact that she pays tax here may qualify her to receive such benefits. If this is the case, well then legally I see no propblem.

As far as her leaving the child, this is all too common in poor countries. Parents go away to work and the Grandparents raise the kids, until the parents can return with enough money to make a life for them and their children. The harsh realities of poverty.

It is a bit strange that she has choosen to go to the states before eading back to her baby, and it is her baby, contrary to theidiotic statement made so far, but again that's going on stories from your wife and the girl in question isn't here to defend her position.

A guy I worked with is married to a nurse and I have to say the way she spoke about the foreign nurses was pretty nasty and hard to listen to and there was a lot of back biting and begrudgery going on and it seemed pretty rampant throughout the nursing establishment. so there could be a bit of exaggeration and bitchy nit picking going on. Or she could be telling the whole truth. Either way, what's the big deal. She has adopted a baby and is entitled to her leave. She pays taxes just like the rest of us. The rest is hearsay.

Daroxtar

beth-lou wrote: »

All adoptive mothers are entitled to the same maternity leave as birth mothers, that is the law and it is there to ensure that there is adequate time for mother and child to bond and adapt. The majority of adoptive parents legitimally need this time for both them and the child.

I am not sure about your wifes friends situation as we only have your word and hers. But from a legal point of view she is entitled to the time off.
Since she is not a member f the EU I would imagine that she will not be paid while on her leave. I would also imagine, that she is not entitled to child benefit either, as she is not a member of the EU, although the fact that she pays tax here may qualify her to receive such benefits. If this is the case, well then legally I see no propblem.

As far as her leaving the child, this is all too common in poor countries. Parents go away to work and the Grandparents raise the kids, until the parents can return with enough money to make a life for them and their children. The harsh realities of poverty.

It is a bit strange that she has choosen to go to the states before eading back to her baby, and it is her baby, contrary to theidiotic statement made so far, but again that's going on stories from your wife and the girl in question isn't here to defend her position.

A guy I worked with is married to a nurse and I have to say the way she spoke about the foreign nurses was pretty nasty and hard to listen to and there was a lot of back biting and begrudgery going on and it seemed pretty rampant throughout the nursing establishment. so there could be a bit of exaggeration and bitchy nit picking going on. Or she could be telling the whole truth. Either way, what's the big deal. She has adopted a baby and is entitled to her leave. She pays taxes just like the rest of us. The rest is hearsay.

Go back and have a re read of my original post. I said i couldn't care less where she's from. As regards this topic being hearsay, i point to your above emboldened text and say the same. This is just your word and your friends wife isn't here to defend your accusations against her.

You say its a bit strange that she's going on holiday, well its equally strange that she adopted the child nearly a year ago and has yet to spend any time with it, but you still think she should get maternity leave to bond with it. If she wanted to bond with it then she should have done it at the start instead of dumping it on the relatives.

Like i said before, i'm not here to argue the Legality of it. I just think what she has done is morally and ethically wrong. I didn't ask is this legal, I asked is this right.

xOxSinéadxOx

let me get this straight, she's not going home to the child during her maternity leave?

Daroxtar

xOxSinéadxOx wrote: »

let me get this straight, she's not going home to the child during her maternity leave?

She is, but after her holiday in the states first, and then she's coming back without the child again.

fred funk }{

You and your wife should mind your own business.

Daroxtar

fred funk }{ wrote: »

You and your wife should mind your own business.

Of course we should. And we should stand by with our arses in the air meekly waiting to be rode:rolleyes:
Any other gems?

Gummy Panda

Wait.. why would the Irish state be paying child benefits to this woman?

She is not an EU citzen and neither is the child. I thought that child benefits for kids in country only applied within the EU and with its citzens.

Daroxtar

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Wait.. why would the Irish state be paying child benefits to this woman?

She is not an EU citzen and neither is the child. I thought that child benefits for kids in country only applied within the EU and with its citzens.

She's an irish citzen now. Been here for years.

Actually, she got her citzenship early late 2007, before the adoption.

mahamageehad

There are way more irish people riding the system than foreigners.

If we don't know the full story how can we judge?!

Daroxtar

mahamageehad wrote: »

There are way more irish people riding the system than foreigners.

If we don't know the full story how can we judge?!

Like i said before, i dont care where she's from.
My point is that she is legally using the system but more importantly is getting maternity leave for a child she has neither given birth to nor made any attempt to be with.

pierrot

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

A Filipino nurse from the Phillipines


EDIT: Just checked and that is the correct spelling...how odd

But maybe Filipina for feminine? I dunno, who speaks Spanish?

Daroxtar

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Wait.. why would the Irish state be paying child benefits to this woman?

She is not an EU citzen and neither is the child. I thought that child benefits for kids in country only applied within the EU and with its citzens.

Just thinkin that through and I'd say you have a very good point regardless of whether she has her citizenship or not. Is she still entitled to the benefits for a child who is not living in the EU? If she's not but she's claiming then she's fibbing about where the child is. Prior to this i just had issue with the whole Holiday/Maternity/Dump the child with the relatives thing. Now its quite posible she is doing something illegal. I shall enquire further

mahamageehad

Daroxtar wrote: »

Like i said before, i dont care where she's from.
My point is that she is legally using the system but more importantly is getting maternity leave for a child she has neither given birth to nor made any attempt to be with.

No sorry, my fault i wasn't very clear.

My point was that she's using what seems to be a legal loophole and taking advantage of laws and benefits that the majority of adoptive mothers rely on. It sucks but we have no definitive proof that she's doing anything illegal.

Before we start worrying about this we should be thinking about the Irish people who scam, rip-off and ride the system here.
Illegally.

Daroxtar

mahamageehad wrote: »

No sorry, my fault i wasn't very clear.

My point was that she's using what seems to be a legal loophole and taking advantage of laws and benefits that the majority of adoptive mothers rely on. It sucks but we have no definitive proof that she's doing anything illegal.

Before we start worrying about this we should be thinking about the Irish people who scam, rip-off and ride the system here.
Illegally.

I agree with you, we have no proof and it does seem to be some loophole or other. Doesn't make it right though. Anyone scamming the system should have their hole kicked.

P.S. Sorry for being so high and mighty in AH, but the politics/ humanities type forums are a bit fukn uppity so this thread wouldn't have normal responses from normal people.

not that everyone here is normal either

Nodin

Daroxtar wrote: »

1/ The pregnant woman is carrying the child and should be entitled to some form of maternity leave, if only to allow her recover from childbirth. The woman in this case has gone through none of that.?

So you're proposing discrimination against adoptive parents.

Daroxtar wrote: »

2/ If its so tough to survive then why buy a new baby?

Now this may come as a shock, but the wimmin (and occassionally the men) have the urge to have 'teh babies'....

Daroxtar wrote: »

She's an irish citzen now. Been here for years.?

So now you're begrudging an Irish citizen what they're legally entitled to?

Quazzie

Nodin wrote: »

So you're proposing discrimination against adoptive parents.

Not adoptive parents, just adoptive parents that have nothing to do with the child they adopted. It is my understanding that maternity leave is time to give the mother to adjust to parental duties, and to bond with the new arrival. She is doing neither (if what the OP says is right) then why should she be given maternity leave?