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:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:35

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:31

Can you give examples of crap the government is spending money on with amounts?

Can you give examples of what you would class as taxing people and companies properly?

Show quote history

One easy thing to speak about are salary increases for MPs. But this thread isn't about that. Things cost what they cost.

OP posts:
DancefloorAcrobatics · 01/02/2025 09:35

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:12

Why? Because it would allow each parent to take responsibility for the child rather than saying one person gets money for it so it's mostly their job. That's how it works now.

I assumed that with 50/50, you were both automatically viewed as people who need to support a child but you are not. Only the person that receives CB is allocated any funds to house the children.

Show quote history

Parents can take responsibility for their children without the state providing 2 homes for the children because their parents split up. It's not easy but it can be done.

You look at this as the parents need to be supported =2 sets of homes/ benefit payment, but in reality the state supports the child = one home / benefits payment.
You forget, that the parents are adults, they are able to work an can make decisions for themselves and their children independently from the state.

You'd do better if you lobby for fair wages, better access to flexible working for parents and affordable childcare.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:34

vivainsomnia · 01/02/2025 09:28

OP, are you both working FT? Surely, if nothing are working FT, and entitled to help with some housing and childcare costs, it should absolutely be doable.

With one child only, it's perfectly possible to fi d a one bedroom, with extra space to make another one. A dining room that can be turned into a bedroom, a large lounge that can be divided, etc...

Ultimately, of you have young kids, work FT and on a low pay, the main priority should be to increase income and look at every way to do so.

Yes we both work full time and we don't get state top ups due to our joint income. I definitely would on my sole income and I think my husband might if he was the RP and having to fund a family home himself. I'm not sure of the exact threshold there.

However, if I had to move out and find a local property with space to house my kids, and I wasn't the RP, I wouldn't be able to on my wages. Definitely not 50/50, so I'd owe my husband CM which would leave me with even less money.

There's no way any place I'd have to consider would have a dining room to turn into a bedroom 😂 We would be talking a studio or one.bedroom if I was lucky to house 3 kids of both genders and different ages.

OP posts:
GRex · 01/02/2025 09:32

The state pays to ensure all the adults and children have an adequate home; children don't need two bedrooms they need one. The NRP can still care for them, but bring them home for bed. If that isn't enough for you, then you'll just have to work and fund your two households that way.

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:31

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:18

Nothing. They don't need to. Stop spending money on crap and tax people and companies properly and we would have enough money.

Show quote history

Can you give examples of crap the government is spending money on with amounts?

Can you give examples of what you would class as taxing people and companies properly?

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:31

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:29

Not giving them the means to step up means that even the ones that would, or could learn to, cannot. And women bear the burden of that.

Show quote history

Well, unfortunately, women do bear the brunt. Women are also taxpayers. Why should a single Mum pay extra tax to fund your situation?

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:29

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:18

Nothing. They don't need to. Stop spending money on crap and tax people and companies properly and we would have enough money.

Show quote history

So, would you pay more tax?

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:29

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:26

It's a scandal that some fathers, apparently, don't step up. However. There's no way any government can change that. No-one can sanction a dad for not doing a school run or living miles away from his children. That's not what state intervention is for.

Show quote history

Not giving them the means to step up means that even the ones that would, or could learn to, cannot. And women bear the burden of that.

OP posts:
vivainsomnia · 01/02/2025 09:28

OP, are you both working FT? Surely, if nothing are working FT, and entitled to help with some housing and childcare costs, it should absolutely be doable.

With one child only, it's perfectly possible to fi d a one bedroom, with extra space to make another one. A dining room that can be turned into a bedroom, a large lounge that can be divided, etc...

Ultimately, of you have young kids, work FT and on a low pay, the main priority should be to increase income and look at every way to do so.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:27

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:24

It's unfair, that's life. Plenty of low waged people have children though, and plenty of single people do, and parent successfully.
The point is that there is no such thing as "state top ups" because it's taxpayers' money, so other parents are paying for you. Splitting up is tough, and it's obviously not going to be as easy and convenient as a 2 parent household.

Show quote history

Taxpayers help fund state costs so it is state money. We are in a situation with high child poverty so actually many low waged parents aren't doing just fine. Additionally, it's forcing people to stay in relationships that are harmful to themselves and others. And that's not even counting relationships that are overtly abusive. Just the shitty ones.

We live in a time where most parents split up. We should be making it easy and convenient to still give children stable homes with ample opportunity to bond with their parents. It's in their best interests, and in the best interests of society, too.

OP posts:
Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:26

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:24

You can't step up if you also have to be miles away working all the hours god sends to pay for the maintenance that is so high because you can never have your kids overnight. You literally cannot step up and the person who bears that burden is the RP. So even when the other parent would take a fair share of the load, they cannot. And who pays for that? Mostly mothers.

Show quote history

It's a scandal that some fathers, apparently, don't step up. However. There's no way any government can change that. No-one can sanction a dad for not doing a school run or living miles away from his children. That's not what state intervention is for.

RabbitsEatPancakes · 01/02/2025 09:25

The state pays for your kids once and you want them to pay double?
I think some taxpayers would like to be able to keep some money to pay for their own kids.

50/50 is shite anyway and only benefits parents. So no I don't support that at all.

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:24

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:20

If only people who didn't have to rely on state top ups have kids, only the richest people would be reproducing. I find that problematic, I realise that many others don't.

Show quote history

It's unfair, that's life. Plenty of low waged people have children though, and plenty of single people do, and parent successfully.
The point is that there is no such thing as "state top ups" because it's taxpayers' money, so other parents are paying for you. Splitting up is tough, and it's obviously not going to be as easy and convenient as a 2 parent household.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:24

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:21

So? The taxpayer should pay for his upgrade?
If he's a parent he needs to step up. No one's life is perfect and all parents have to adjust and compromise.

Show quote history

You can't step up if you also have to be miles away working all the hours god sends to pay for the maintenance that is so high because you can never have your kids overnight. You literally cannot step up and the person who bears that burden is the RP. So even when the other parent would take a fair share of the load, they cannot. And who pays for that? Mostly mothers.

OP posts:
FrutenGlee · 01/02/2025 09:22

I agree with you in principle and the housing crisis is warping how we live in so many ways.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:22

Bushmillsbabe · 01/02/2025 08:23

I understand where you are coming from, in an ideal world both parents would be able to afford for example a 2 bed flat if they had 2 young children, so a room for bunk beds for the children, and they may need support from housing to do this.

But unfortunately we are living in a housing crisis, particularly within social housing. I work with families where 2 parents and 5 children are living in a 2 bedroom flat, families with 1 parent and 3 children are living in a studio flat, children in wheelchairs are being carried up 4 flights of stairs on their parents back. Waits for housing are many years long, and if a family that was living in 1 property is then allocated 2 seperate properties, the wait will become even longer. The state paying out even more money to private landlords isn't viable when so many public services are at breaking point, that money would have to come from the nhs, or education, or social care etc money.

I fully agree with you in principle, but practically what you are asking for isn't viable.

I think it is. Across the road from me there is a new housing complex with must be a thousand flats. Half are bought by investors and empty most of the time or air bnbs. Those homes in the middle of London could be housing parents with dependents in the area they have a support network.

OP posts:
Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:21

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:00

And I'd argue with the idea they only need one home. No they need to be able to have a home with each parent so each parent has the facilities to fulfil their parenting responsibilities.

If a guy can literally only afford a studio flat miles away from his kids, he can't have them overnight. He can't do school runs ever. He can't do emergency pick ups. He can't have a sick kid for a week off work. And not could a woman in the same position.

So? The taxpayer should pay for his upgrade?
If he's a parent he needs to step up. No one's life is perfect and all parents have to adjust and compromise.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:20

PotaytoPotahhto · 01/02/2025 08:22

Well we want another child but it makes no financial sense for us.

We earn no benefits so have had to make the difficult decision to not make our family bigger. Why should those who rely on handouts have more freedom than those of us who work and don’t claim.

Show quote history

If only people who didn't have to rely on state top ups have kids, only the richest people would be reproducing. I find that problematic, I realise that many others don't.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:18

MrTiddlesTheCat · 01/02/2025 09:16

What would you like the government to cut in order to pay for your children to have 2 homes?

Nothing. They don't need to. Stop spending money on crap and tax people and companies properly and we would have enough money.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:17

Margot2020 · 01/02/2025 09:13

A lot of talk about what’s “best for women” or “punishing women” in the OP. But many women are taxpayers. And for me personally as a taxpayer, beyond a minimum for those in dire need, I’d rather keep my money to invest in my own children’s childhood than pay additional tax to fund two family homes for each separated couple, of which there are many.

Yes some people.resent funding a welfare state which is again, a general antibenefits stance.

OP posts:
MrTiddlesTheCat · 01/02/2025 09:16

What would you like the government to cut in order to pay for your children to have 2 homes?

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:16

BadSkiingMum · 01/02/2025 09:10

I think you are right to ask questions of ‘the system’ and clearly the biggest problem is unpaid maintenance. There was a recent report by Gingerbread about this issue.

I believe that adult children should be able to sue NRP for unpaid maintenance, once they turn eighteen.

But apart from that I think there needs to be greater emphasis on personal responsibility, that an individual (unless they become a victim of crime, accident or other circumstances beyond their own control) mostly shapes their own life with their decisions.

A decision to have several children will make it far harder to house all of them in the event of a split. A decision to become a SAHP will decrease your earning power later in life. A decision to have another baby in a brand new relationship, which is less likely to last, will mean that you are tied to two different co-parents for a very long time.

Parenting is about sacrifice and sometimes it is actually better to keep a stable home and family unit for children to grow up in. Not always, but sometimes.

There is too much social weight given to adult fulfilment and not enough given to stability for children.

I always find attitudes towards nesting very interesting, because it literally puts children at the centre, which is what everyone claims to want to do. However, as soon as it is put forward, lots of people aren’t too keen because they feel that it will prevent them from ‘moving on’.

I think a toxic relationship can halt you from being as good of a parent as you could be. I think it would be very hard to remove yourself from that toxicity without clear boundaries and separation from your ex. So I think sometimes you need to move on, not necessarily with someone else, but just emotionally, in order to be a good parent. And that's where I think the nesting arrangement might be problematic.

OP posts:
Macrodatarefiner · 01/02/2025 09:15

I wish both parties would think harder before having children if they're not then going to do their utmost to raise them in a loving and committed family. Sometimes it's hard. And no, I'm not saying one person has to such up abuse from the other.

Margot2020 · 01/02/2025 09:13

A lot of talk about what’s “best for women” or “punishing women” in the OP. But many women are taxpayers. And for me personally as a taxpayer, beyond a minimum for those in dire need, I’d rather keep my money to invest in my own children’s childhood than pay additional tax to fund two family homes for each separated couple, of which there are many.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:12

DancefloorAcrobatics · 01/02/2025 08:24

Why should the state provide 2 homes for one child or sibling group?

I fully agree with the poster that if the children are 50/50 with each parent and the parents need state benefit for whatever reason, then the child element of UC should also be 50/50.

Why? Because it would allow each parent to take responsibility for the child rather than saying one person gets money for it so it's mostly their job. That's how it works now.

I assumed that with 50/50, you were both automatically viewed as people who need to support a child but you are not. Only the person that receives CB is allocated any funds to house the children.

OP posts: