A model mother (?)

[skylee]

Very interesting and even touching news but do you agree with the judgement? (Many people on the web have expressed disagreement ...)

Gist of the case - a single mother of 5 children enjoying the dole broke the rule to work at the same time to earn more. She was charged by the Government and pleaded guilty, but the judge was so touched by her raising 5 children alone that he only ordered her to provide 240 hours' community service and did not impose imprisonment.

單親母騙21萬綜援 官讚慈母 輕判服務令

【明報專訊】獨力撫養5名子女的單親母親隱瞞在菜檔任散工約7個月共有5萬元收入，3年間向社署多領取21萬元。母親昨在屯門裁判法院被判240小時社會服務令，裁判官讚揚被告是慈母典範，在事件揭發後財政緊絀下盡力還款，長女出外工作後已不再領綜援，但仍須判最高時數社會服務令，以反映案件嚴重性。

被告陳少英（49歲）昨在庭上以紙巾輕擦眼睛，被告5名子女亦有到庭支持母親，其間最年幼的兒子因身體不適先行返家。她早前承認7項以欺騙手段取得財產及欺詐等罪。

長女覓得工作 主動放棄綜援

裁判官郭偉健判刑時指出，被告在申領綜援的3年間，曾當了約7個月的菜檔散工，而有關收入亦未必影響她申領綜援資格。另外，被告與社署達成協議，從2003年開始每月向社署還款1500元，直至目前為止，已償還了逾6萬元，一家6口生活水平已低於基本需要。他又考慮到被告全家在長女找到工作後，已主動放棄申請綜援，全家每月只靠長女的1.3萬元過活，扣除向社署還款及稅項後，只剩約8500元作6人的生活費。在有限資源下，被告仍盡努力還款給政府，可見被告並不想濫用公帑。

郭偉健讚揚失婚的被告是慈母典範，犯案時子女只有8至15歲，均在求學。被告的行為亦令人感動，雖然如此，騙綜援始終是法理不容。但考慮被告長女剛出外工作，次子讀書成績很好，三女勤力找工作，終於「守得雲開見月明」，認為再「打散」這個家庭是不必要，也不能幫助社會；因此，判以最高時數，即240小時社會服務令，以反映罪行的嚴重性。

獨養5子女 領綜援做散工犯例

他批評，社署從01年展開調查至今，拖延了5年時間，令被告長時間受困擾及打擊，引致失眠及消化不良。 ( )

案情指被告在98年5月，指自己是單親母親，育有5名兒女，丈夫亦已離家。被告聲稱沒有工作，離家的丈夫沒有給家用。社署完成覆核後，於同年6月向她批出綜援。至01年4月為止，她共獲逾30萬的綜援。社署於同年6月進行抽樣調查，發現她領綜援期間，約有7個月在菜檔任散工或兼職。

官逐一勉勵被告子女 籲支持母親回饋社會

【明報專訊】裁判官郭偉健在判刑後，要求被告的4名子女（另一兒子因身體不適提早離開）在庭上站起來。他向被告的子女訓示，指他們的母親一手養大他們，幫助他們，不惜犯法，即使被判監都不會後悔。他希望5人在母親履行社會服務令期間，能支持母親，更指母親一生的目標只希望他們5人能成長及回報社會，要求5人不要辜負母親的心血。

郭續稱，被告的長女是會計師，次子成績好，三女雖然暫時失業失學，也努力找工作做，兩名最年幼的兒子及女兒現時比較反叛，而母親為了5人付出那麼多，香港人用了很多錢在他們身上，希望他們能好好回饋社會，作為母親都會因此感到驕傲。郭最後勸勉5人能團結一起，好好照顧母親，長女能好好教導弟妹，次子不要只顧自己的事，年紀較小的子女能好好做人。

[anonymoose]

I haven't read the Chinese article yet (partly because it is difficult to read traditional characters in small size font on my monitor), but from your rough outline, I think the judgement was reasonable under the circumstances.

If someone has children, it is their own responsibility to provide for them within the bounds of the law. If you can't afford to raise children, then don't have them - it is unreasonable to expect other people to pay for your kids!

Lots of people decide to delay having children in order to establish a secure financial basis first. It irritates me that the efforts of those who work hard to do so are undermined by others who irresponsibly fulfil their desires by sponging off society.

Now I know this woman was entitled to the social security money, and the issue was that she also worked at the same time, but she could have chosen not to work and just continue receiving the money. Well, either you accept the money, and agree to abide by the legal framework under which the money is provided, or you don't take the money. If you break the law, then you deserve the punishment.

In this case, I think the woman got off lightly. However, under the circumstances, I think the ruling is reasonable. After all, had she been imprisoned, it wouldn't just be her that suffers, but also her 5 children. However, I think she should be assessed closely to make sure she is fulfilling her obligations as a parent responsibly because if her 5 kids grow up to be like her, it will just perpetuate the problem to the next generation.

[Lu]

If someone has children, it is their own responsibility to provide for them within the bounds of the law. If you can't afford to raise children, then don't have them - it is unreasonable to expect other people to pay for your kids!

Of course, ideally one shouldn't have children if one can't afford them. But in reality it's not that simple. Sometimes people aren't careful, get pregnant and can't/don't want to have an abortion. Sometimes people have children they can afford, but then their circumstances change. An expensive house you can sell, but you can't abandon your children if they get too expensive. Single mothers don't have children all by themselves, the children also have a father, who may have died or lost his job or left. In all these cases, you can't really blame the parents (in this case the mother) for not being able to provide for their children.

I also haven't read the original, but judging from Skylee's summary I think the judgment was fair. He could hardly put her in jail, where would the children go? A fine would also have been pointless, she probably doesn't have any money to spare. And she obviously was able to work.

But I wonder what is going to happen next. I don't suppose this woman was working for fun, she probably really needed that money, and now she can't work anymore (or has to give up her dole money).

[anonymoose]

Sometimes people aren't careful, get pregnant and can't/don't want to have an abortion.

I don't dispute this, but there's no excuse for making the same mistake 5 times.

Not wanting an abortion is not an excuse. If you know you won't be able to provide for the kid, then don't have it, or give it up for adoption.

In all these cases, you can't really blame the parents (in this case the mother) for not being able to provide for their children.

It is not a question of blame. I'm sure there are many cases in which parents find themselves in financial difficulty through no fault of their own. In these cases, social security policies should be changed to cope with these situations.

On the other hand I am waiting to have children until I am financially secure enough to be able to provide for them myself. Why should I, as a tax-payer, be forced to subsidise someone else's children, and in the process have to wait even longer until I have established my own financial security?

I don't begrudge cases when social security is legitimately needed, but at least here in the UK, I feel the generous social security benefits just encourage people to have children when they shouldn't, and furthermore, it perpetuates the situation when those kids grow up and follow in their parents' footsteps.

[bhchao]

Well, either you accept the money, and agree to abide by the legal framework under which the money is provided, or you don't take the money. If you break the law, then you deserve the punishment.

In this case, I think the woman got off lightly. However, under the circumstances, I think the ruling is reasonable. After all, had she been imprisoned, it wouldn't just be her that suffers, but also her 5 children.

I agree. The law should be applied equally to everyone, in principle. This is similar to the analogy where a laid off/unemployed individual finds a job, and doesn't report the employment to the government because he or she wants to continue to receive unemployment insurance benefits, when it should have stopped after finding a new job.

Not only is this punishable by imprisonment in the state of California, but you would have to pay back the government benefits + penalties.

However I believe that there are extenuating circumstances, very rare exceptions, which the judicial system need to consider before applying the law. The woman did get off lightly, but under the circumstances, the judge was reasonable because imprisoning her would cause undue hardship to her five children, who would have no one else to take care of them.

[Ian_Lee]

IMO the Judge should have acquitted her.

Ths issue is not with the number of kids she has -- in fact most HK families are now encouraged to have more children since HK has become an aging society.

When she first applied for welfare in '98, she already had 5 kids. The reason that she applied for welfare was because her husband divorced her and refused to pay alimony.

So how could she make a living with 5 kids? In fact, the meager salary that she made during the 7 months as an assistant to a vegetable hawker did not affect her eligibility to apply for welfare at all.

The only problem is that she didn't report it.

And judged by what the two older kids have achieved, I believe that the mom had spent every penny from her part time job onto the kids.

Now the judge ruled that she should work 240 hours for social service. I just wonder how can a busy 5-kid mom have such time to spare after doing the house chores!

[Shadowdh]

Not wanting an abortion is not an excuse. If you know you won't be able to provide for the kid, then don't have it, or give it up for adoption.

Now that is just cold and oh so easy when its not your child you have to make the decision about... things are tough hell then lets just give it away... (you can even pass it off as a designer must have and get these really rich pop stars to buy... I mean "adopt" it if you like)...

I totally understand your comments on the situation re the UK but sometimes its just not as simple as it may first appear...

[anonymoose]

Now that is just cold and oh so easy when its not your child you have to make the decision about... things are tough hell then lets just give it away... (you can even pass it off as a designer must have and get these really rich pop stars to buy... I mean "adopt" it if you like)...

So what solution would you propose? Would you like to respond to the part you conveniently ignored:

I am waiting to have children until I am financially secure enough to be able to provide for them myself. Why should I, as a tax-payer, be forced to subsidise someone else's children, and in the process have to wait even longer until I have established my own financial security?

[Shadowdh]

I didnt ignore it at all, I was responding to just point that was made in a very cold hearted and ignorant manner... what you believe is fine and I commend your foresightedness in this regard but what happens when you decide the time is right have 2 or 3 kids and then the marriage goes pear shaped...?? so do you either get rid of them or farm them out then...??? I understand your thoughts when it comes to those who pop out a kid just to get a flat (as in some cases in the UK here, particularly southwark I understand), or because they just cant be ar$ed using appropriate contraceptive (which doesnt always work as I can attest to on a whole stack of bibles) but sometimes the situation calls for a little more thought than "oh the leeches that didnt wait till they were rich enough to support their children... look how much better I have it planned..." And if you think the govt would not find any other use for the money that you are being conned out of to support these leeches of society then perhaps kids are not for you... which is also a valid thought...

[anonymoose]

I was responding to just point that was made in a very cold hearted and ignorant manner.....what happens when you decide the time is right have 2 or 3 kids and then the marriage goes pear shaped...?? so do you either get rid of them or farm them out then...???

Sorry, I thought I had made my point clearly. Let me reitterate:

I'm sure there are many cases in which parents find themselves in financial difficulty through no fault of their own.

I don't begrudge cases when social security is legitimately needed

What you accuse me of having said 'in a very cold hearted and ignorant manner' was a response to this...

Sometimes people aren't careful, get pregnant and can't/don't want to have an abortion.

...and not the scenario of the marriage going pear-shaped which you painted. Understand?

[Shadowdh]

*holds hands up* missed that bit, due to not reading fully.... my apologies... thats what you get for hurrying (something I tell my kids not to do) and being so darn tired.... but the comment re just get rid of it still stands, as...

.and not the scenario of the marriage going pear-shaped which you painted. Understand?

can happen and does happen all the time... in fact I know where a rock steady relationship (together 10 years, engaged and for all intents and purposes married) fell apart when she became pregnant as the guy did a runner because it "interfered with his lifestyle"... I also think there is a difference between not being careful and actively seeking to become pregnant to "enjoy" the benefits of others labour ie taxes and thus live of the fat of others... and as I said...

I totally understand your comments on the situation re the UK but sometimes its just not as simple as it may first appear...

Perhaps I should reconfirm this and state that I agree with you in those situations...