Is This Right?

Daroxtar · 30-03-2009 10:50AM #1

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 · 30-03-2009 10:53AM

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 · 30-03-2009 10:53AM

sounds right to me

MarkR · 30-03-2009 10:55AM

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

Turd Ferguson · 30-03-2009 10:56AM

A Filipino nurse from the Phillipines

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

Daroxtar · 30-03-2009 10:58AM

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 · 30-03-2009 10:59AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:00AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:02AM

Does your Missus work with Madonna?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-03-2009 11:02AM

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

Fratton Fred · 30-03-2009 11:02AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:03AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:05AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:06AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:07AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:07AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:11AM

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 · 30-03-2009 11:22AM

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 · 30-03-2009 12:09PM

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 · 30-03-2009 12:12PM

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 · 30-03-2009 12:32PM

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 · 30-03-2009 12:37PM

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 · 30-03-2009 12:48PM

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 · 30-03-2009 12:55PM

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.

30-03-2009 12:59PM

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 · 30-03-2009 01:00PM

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 · 30-03-2009 01:00PM

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 · 30-03-2009 01:01PM

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 · 30-03-2009 01:03PM

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 · 30-03-2009 01:04PM

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 · 30-03-2009 01:04PM

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.

Is This Right?

Comments