Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think we have to stop punishing parents for splitting up.

237 replies

JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:12

In a post earlier, I was talking about the law that says CM can be reduced if a man moves in with a new partner who has children as it's assumed that he will financially provide for those children.

This assumes that his ex will then net herself a new man to pay for their kids which is not only presumptuous, it's dangerous for her and the kids.

Of course this works regardless of gender, it's a RP vs NRP issue.

Well just now, I was looking up something to do with another trending thread and what I found out is that because the RP gets the CB, the NRP can't name their kids as dependents in the welfare system at all. Even if they had 50/50 custody. So that means that if, for whatever reason, I split from my husband and it was best I left the kids with him in the family home, I couldn't get any benefit top ups that would take into account that I need a place to house my kids, too.

So I literally couldn't have 50/50 custody. It would be near impossible for me to find a place close enough to do so due to the COL and that everything we have and know is in one of the most expensive parts of country.

It would not be all that different for their dad. He earns more money than me, but if he had to have a whole other home and supply the kids while they are there, he would maybe fall below the threshold and be eligible for benefits as a RP. But if he couldn't get them because only one of us can count the kids as our dependents, then he would potentially not be able to see them as much as he could, not be as involved in their lives as he could, and would end up paying more CM the less he sees them overnight. So a vicious circle.

What does this mean? Well it means that people like me will be more likely to stay in a toxic relationship which harms the kids. It means that mothers are more likely to have to shoulder the weight of raising the children even where the father wants to be as involved. It means parents have to consider fighting for that status in court just to be recognised as someone with dependents. Its because they've centred this whole thing around who gets a measly 20 quid a week. CB should be totally separate to who needs extra room for their kids.

OP posts:
StormingNorman · 31/01/2025 23:56

JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:49

They aren't paying for anyone to service two households. They're paying for two separate adults to service their own household and house their dependents.

Show quote history

In your scenario you are double counting the dependants.

The benefits for dependants are FOR dependants, not for the parent. Those dependants only need one home. Any other arrangement is a family decision and should be funded by the decision-making parties.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:56

Theunamedcat · 31/01/2025 23:53

No because there is usually a lower earner and it's rare to have true 50/50 one parent invariably does more than the other however in true 50/50 orders it can say the child benefits can be split if there is no difference in each parents income

Personally I wouldn't stay in a relationship for £20 a week

That £20 a week means that the system acknowledges that your earnings have to also support the home of dependents. Thats why I'm saying the money thing should be separate to things like your housing allowance on UC.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:54

cadburyegg · 31/01/2025 23:50

Of course there is a point of splitting child benefit. If there are 2 children and the parents have 50/50 then they each claim it for one child.

But I don't think 50/50 is always in a child's best interest anyway. And I know of no split families, mine included, who do this. For me and all the single mothers I know, the men simply don't want that responsibility. It has nothing to do with the money either.

The state does not have an unlimited pot of money. What would be better is if the rules were relaxed in terms of earnings - at the moment 2x parents earning 50k each can claim child benefit and funded childcare hours but 1x parent earning 100k can't. Single parents are literally penalised.

That's another example of how you'd be punished for splitting up.

What part affects you depends on your income I suspect. A lot of people I know would be reliant on the social housing system in some way and unless they were the RP, they'd not be able to have somewhere their kids could stay.

That's bad for dad's, but literally for some women I know, not being declared RP would be a total disaster because of their lack of earning power. Not that the men involved have much more but they can at least do more physical jobs that might permit them a place to stay nearby without ever having the kids.

OP posts:
Theunamedcat · 31/01/2025 23:53

No because there is usually a lower earner and it's rare to have true 50/50 one parent invariably does more than the other however in true 50/50 orders it can say the child benefits can be split if there is no difference in each parents income

Personally I wouldn't stay in a relationship for £20 a week

cadburyegg · 31/01/2025 23:52

I would support an overhaul of the CMS which ensures NRPs actually do pay for their children, and doesn't enable them to go self employed to avoid it, like my exh has done, and many other men according to this forum.

But nobody cares about the womenz and their bad relationship decisions so it won't happen.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:50

Meecrowahvey · 31/01/2025 23:45

No. I'm sick of people expecting others to pay for their children and relationship decisions.

I don't believe living 50/50 between parents is a good thing for children anyway. They need main home.

Well that's an argument against all benefits.

OP posts:
cadburyegg · 31/01/2025 23:50

Of course there is a point of splitting child benefit. If there are 2 children and the parents have 50/50 then they each claim it for one child.

But I don't think 50/50 is always in a child's best interest anyway. And I know of no split families, mine included, who do this. For me and all the single mothers I know, the men simply don't want that responsibility. It has nothing to do with the money either.

The state does not have an unlimited pot of money. What would be better is if the rules were relaxed in terms of earnings - at the moment 2x parents earning 50k each can claim child benefit and funded childcare hours but 1x parent earning 100k can't. Single parents are literally penalised.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:49

KilkennyCats · 31/01/2025 23:48

No, the state should NOT pay for you to service two households.
The idea that you think this is owed to you is breathtaking.

They aren't paying for anyone to service two households. They're paying for two separate adults to service their own household and house their dependents.

OP posts:
KilkennyCats · 31/01/2025 23:48

No, the state should NOT pay for you to service two households.
The idea that you think this is owed to you is breathtaking.

Meecrowahvey · 31/01/2025 23:45

No. I'm sick of people expecting others to pay for their children and relationship decisions.

I don't believe living 50/50 between parents is a good thing for children anyway. They need main home.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:39

mitogoshigg · 31/01/2025 23:16

What are you suggesting? The state aka the general public should not be paying for two houses for your dc. If you genuinely want to have children 50/50 and there's 2 or more children, it's possible to split the child benefit anyway

There isnt any point in splitting 10 pound. And yes, the state should pay by counting both parties as people with dependents, especially in a case of 50/50 custody. It would pay off in the long run by giving both parents the opportunity to work around their parenting responsibilities. Instead of one person sacrificing their career for childcare while the other one works to pay for a big enough home to never have their kids and pay CM for the unequal parenting load.

OP posts:
mitogoshigg · 31/01/2025 23:16

What are you suggesting? The state aka the general public should not be paying for two houses for your dc. If you genuinely want to have children 50/50 and there's 2 or more children, it's possible to split the child benefit anyway