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 02:16

PinkArt · 01/02/2025 02:07

No-one is punishing separated parents any more than they are punishing single people because it's cheaper for two adults to share a home than one adult to run a home alone. Is it frustrating, yes. Is it a punishment, no.
The state pays out £25/16 per week per child. It's the responsibility of the parents how that gets spent for their benefit and if it goes to one parent or is spilt between the two households. It would be ridiculous to pay our twice for children with separated parents.

If that's the case, why don't we make all single people share homes with other adults because it would be cheaper? We shouldn't be giving them any top ups at all for rent or anything because they could just houseshare with others to save costs.

I think it would be better to treat adults with dependents as adults with dependents and single adults as single adults.

Yes that might mean we have to support 2 individuals in providing a stable home to parent, but that would allow both parents opportunity to provide that stability.

OP posts:
Rachmorr57 · 01/02/2025 02:14

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 02:11

That would mean only the richest people have kids considering how many people who work are dependent on state top ups.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 02:10

Tryinghardtobefair · 01/02/2025 01:59

IF the parents have 50/50 custody and claim Universal Credit then I think there should be an option for each parent to claim half the child element, and half the extra housing costs each. You both have 50% responsibility so should get 50% of what you would normally get as a couple.

Both of you getting the full amount of money is a ridiculous suggestion. If that was a thing every Tom Dick and Harry would be splitting up so they could claim double the benefits.

Ultimately it's about living within your means. If you can't afford to live in your area as a single parent relocate to a cheaper area. It's not really penalising single parents because lots of people have to relocate after a change in circumstances.

And before you tell me I don't get it and that it's cruel to move your kids. I was a single parent and an unpaid carer for my child. I got made homeless and couldn't afford to live in my area anymore. I got really really lucky and got a council house. But it was in a completely different part of the city, in an area that wasn't as nice. My daughter had to move schools but she was fine. My circumstances have since changed and I'm not longer single or in a council house. But my point stands.

Now if we want to talk about penalising single parents we should probably focus on the child benefit rule. A couple can claim 99,999 between them before their child benefit gets cut off. But a single parent can claim £49,999 before theirs get cut...that's true penalising of single parents..

"IF the parents have 50/50 custody and claim Universal Credit then I think there should be an option for each parent to claim half the child element, and half the extra housing costs each. You both have 50% responsibility so should get 50% of what you would normally get as a couple."

This would be fine if wages were liveable but as it stands, it would mean mostly women/RPs would have even less money to run a home as a single parent. It would help men/NRPs to some extent.

"If that was a thing every Tom Dick and Harry would be splitting up so they could claim double the benefits."

I'd prefer to remain living with my husband over any benefit money we would be entitled to as single parents. Or even "single parents". I'd like to think he feels the same... don't think I'll ask though!

"If you can't afford to live in your area as a single parent relocate to a cheaper area."

But how it works out is that the RP stays in their area and the NRP has to move away. This is especially true for people in expensive areas who have social housing tenancies. They'd not lose their council house in inner London, but their ex would not be able to rent nearby which effectively prevents them from being as active a parent as they could be. That ultimately harms the RP who we all agree is usually a woman. She can't really argue that he doesn't step up when he can't even afford to live in the same city as her and the kids.

"Now if we want to talk about penalising single parents we should probably focus on the child benefit rule. A couple can claim 99,999 between them before their child benefit gets cut off. But a single parent can claim £49,999 before theirs get cut...that's true penalising of single parents.."

Yes that was raised earlier and I agreed it's another example of how you're punished for ending a relationship when it was likely in the best interests of everyone involved.

OP posts:
SmokeRingsOfMyMind · 01/02/2025 02:09

Here's a radical thought. Maybe both adults could ensure they are able to feed and house themselves without state assistance before they have kids?

SometimesCalmPerson · 01/02/2025 02:08

From the government benefits poiny of view, they do only need to provide for the children once, via one parent. Benefits are there to ensure basic needs are met, not to do parents job for them. Of course it is more expensive to run two households than it is one. Thats for individuals to consider when choosing someone to have children with.

If you only have your children 50% of the time, you have plenty of time to work and pay for your own house.

PinkArt · 01/02/2025 02:07

No-one is punishing separated parents any more than they are punishing single people because it's cheaper for two adults to share a home than one adult to run a home alone. Is it frustrating, yes. Is it a punishment, no.
The state pays out £25/16 per week per child. It's the responsibility of the parents how that gets spent for their benefit and if it goes to one parent or is spilt between the two households. It would be ridiculous to pay our twice for children with separated parents.

LondonLawyer · 01/02/2025 02:04

It's not "stopping punishment" for split parents that you are asking for - it's double funding for children whose parents aren't together. I can see that splitting existing benefits (child benefit) might be fairer, but the cost, trouble and hassle over £10 a week would be disproportionate.
I absolutely don't think the state should be funding two bedrooms for children because their parents have split up. That would cost an immense amount of money. Children need a safe, warm, loving home. They don't need two bedrooms in two different homes, and while parents are welcome to provide them if they choose, it's not reasonable to expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

Oodiks · 01/02/2025 02:04

CB = Child Benefit?
Child Benefit should only be paid to the mother.

InWalksBarberalla · 01/02/2025 02:02

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

The state should pay for neither. Benefits should be considered a last resort - so not having them isn't being punished its supporting yourself like you should. No wonder the UK is such a basket case with attitudes like this.

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

StormingNorman · 01/02/2025 01:10

Nesting. Kids stay in the home and parents move between the family home and the studio flat.

Show quote history

I don't think this is a healthy solution. I'd want to keep clearer boundaries with an ex, myself. Especially if the situation was toxic or even abusive. Terrible idea for that to be the default even though I know it works well for some families individually. The people I've know personally who have done it have kids with disabilities.

OP posts:
Tryinghardtobefair · 01/02/2025 01:59

IF the parents have 50/50 custody and claim Universal Credit then I think there should be an option for each parent to claim half the child element, and half the extra housing costs each. You both have 50% responsibility so should get 50% of what you would normally get as a couple.

Both of you getting the full amount of money is a ridiculous suggestion. If that was a thing every Tom Dick and Harry would be splitting up so they could claim double the benefits.

Ultimately it's about living within your means. If you can't afford to live in your area as a single parent relocate to a cheaper area. It's not really penalising single parents because lots of people have to relocate after a change in circumstances.

And before you tell me I don't get it and that it's cruel to move your kids. I was a single parent and an unpaid carer for my child. I got made homeless and couldn't afford to live in my area anymore. I got really really lucky and got a council house. But it was in a completely different part of the city, in an area that wasn't as nice. My daughter had to move schools but she was fine. My circumstances have since changed and I'm not longer single or in a council house. But my point stands.

Now if we want to talk about penalising single parents we should probably focus on the child benefit rule. A couple can claim 99,999 between them before their child benefit gets cut off. But a single parent can claim £49,999 before theirs get cut...that's true penalising of single parents..

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 01:58

NuffSaidSam · 01/02/2025 01:33

In this scenario, the children stay in the family home and the parents move back and forth. That's the best case scenario for the children anyway. It's also best for the tax payer. If you really care about what's best for the kids you'd take this approach.

Show quote history

So then the parents would need to each fund 1.5 homes each. One where the kids live and they split the costs, and then another place they stay on their off days. Instead of each parent having one home. This would make it even worse for women.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 01:56

StormingNorman · 01/02/2025 01:08

Nobody needs a second home. One person needs one home. If separated parents choose to provide two homes for their children, they need to pay for it rather than the taxpayer. We can’t even get people with no homes off the street.

Show quote history

Each parent needs their own home. You're right nobody needs a second home, each person need their first home since they're no longer a couple.

OP posts:
NuffSaidSam · 01/02/2025 01:33

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.

In this scenario, the children stay in the family home and the parents move back and forth. That's the best case scenario for the children anyway. It's also best for the tax payer. If you really care about what's best for the kids you'd take this approach.

StormingNorman · 01/02/2025 01:10

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.

Nesting. Kids stay in the home and parents move between the family home and the studio flat.

StormingNorman · 01/02/2025 01:08

JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:57

Yes because they need a home with each parent so each parent needs to be able to pay the rent to do so. The parents have split up but have equal responsibility to still parent and care for their children. Giving them the means to have a home to do so is the first start of that.

Show quote history

Nobody needs a second home. One person needs one home. If separated parents choose to provide two homes for their children, they need to pay for it rather than the taxpayer. We can’t even get people with no homes off the street.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:05

KilkennyCats · 01/02/2025 00:02

No they need to be able to have a home with each parent so each parent has the facilities to fulfil their parenting responsibilities
Do fund it yourselves Hmm. Seeing that you’re so hot on responsibilities…

That's just against benefits generally which is a valid stance if you have it but it is irrelevant to a system which only counts one parent as needing to provide housing for the children. You think neither parent should qualify for assistance which is fine to think.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:03

cadburyegg · 01/02/2025 00:01

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.

My ex has 100k in the bank from the divorce settlement but because he supposedly doesn't earn anything he can't get a mortgage, so until he does he is living in a 1 bed flat. Our children don't even have their own beds when they go there, they have to share.

He too, was rather cross at the fact he doesn't get any "handouts" for the children. In the circumstances I described above though, there is only so much hand holding the state should do - at what point does the parent in the situation have to take responsibility for a situation they created?

Having 100k would disqualify you from benefits anyway.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:02

WhingeInTheWillows · 01/02/2025 00:00

Would this mean that parents with no interest in looking after their children would go for a 50:50 split because they would then be able to claim benefits for it? So children would have to spend half their time with a parent, usually their dad, that really doesn’t want them there.

That happens anyway. People go for 50/50 so they don't pay CM. This wouldn't stop bad dads, but it would give all parents the means to step up if they so wish.

OP posts:
KilkennyCats · 01/02/2025 00:02

No they need to be able to have a home with each parent so each parent has the facilities to fulfil their parenting responsibilities
Do fund it yourselves Hmm. Seeing that you’re so hot on responsibilities…

cadburyegg · 01/02/2025 00:01

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.

My ex has 100k in the bank from the divorce settlement but because he supposedly doesn't earn anything he can't get a mortgage, so until he does he is living in a 1 bed flat. Our children don't even have their own beds when they go there, they have to share.

He too, was rather cross at the fact he doesn't get any "handouts" for the children. In the circumstances I described above though, there is only so much hand holding the state should do - at what point does the parent in the situation have to take responsibility for a situation they created?

WhingeInTheWillows · 01/02/2025 00:00

Would this mean that parents with no interest in looking after their children would go for a 50:50 split because they would then be able to claim benefits for it? So children would have to spend half their time with a parent, usually their dad, that really doesn’t want them there.

Original poster
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.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:57

StormingNorman · 31/01/2025 23:56

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.

Show quote history

Yes because they need a home with each parent so each parent needs to be able to pay the rent to do so. The parents have split up but have equal responsibility to still parent and care for their children. Giving them the means to have a home to do so is the first start of that.

OP posts: