Maintenance Payments Ending

Seriously, are you a bot? 🤣 You just seem to be repeating the same sentence, over and over.

You crack me up to i have a disabled child to with complex needs so I have a rough idea of how much UC you would get on a low wage ,and with the disability element and carers element it's going to be a not insignificant amount along with the DLA ,( which you say you are able to use for therapies well done ,as many families with disabled children can't afford therapies ) and your maintenance i wouldn't be at all surprised if you came out with more then your ex / month .

DLA is non means tested it doesn't matter how much maintenance you get
And as I said previously maintenance is disregarded for means tested benefit ,s too.

How do you mean her lifestyle?

For her lifestyle?Can you elaborate?

Can you elaborate please.

Yes, this is true. Yet, If a parent dies and leaves an amount of life insurance then the surviving parent will not be able to claim benefits even though the dead parent will never be able to contribute any maintenance to help with the costs of raising the children, there is no allowance made. If parents divorce, child maintenance is disregarded for benefits AFAIK. Divorced parents end up much better off as they get their payments monthly.

Your children will be adults, therefore of course your ex no longer needs to support you financially.
If he’s a good Dad then he will help out his children with uni costs if they ask him. But that money can go to them, it doesn’t need to be paid to you. If he doesn’t want to then that’s up to him. I got a student loan and worked part time so your kids may have to do the same. They will be fine. Not sure what the issue is.

Wow, you still don't get it at all. What I am getting at is that, where they can blatantly afford to, the other parent should contribute more CM, so that DLA can be reduced, in circumstances where the other parent is able to contribute. Such a reduction in DLA expenditure could then be used to safeguard the benefits of other disabled children and people who have no family support and avoid the crisis we are currently seeing with benefits slashing of the most vulnerable in our society.

🤣🤣🤣 You crack me up. Yeah, of course, because if you were going to change the system to make the show-parent contribute more than 10% of their income, you'd change absolutely nothing else. To maintain a fair and sustainable benefits system, there needs to be a middle ground between where it is now and where it was when I was a kid (all maintenance got taken off you). Then maybe we wouldn't be in a position where the most vulnerable people, least able to advocate for themselves, are the fat the government is looking to trim, to "make ends meet" and reduce the benefits bill, while keeping the rich rich 🙄

Why do they need financial support for living costs if they are going to uni?

@Caligirl80 Have you had a child at uni recently? Things have massively changed in recent years.

A large amount of what you just said in this post is absolute nonsense and unsupported by reality. I would urge you to delete it and actually do some research into student finance.
As for universities penalising kids who take a gap year; That's also completely ridiculous and utterly false. Some universities may not permit deferred entry, but that doesn't mean the student wouldn't be admitted should they re-apply for the year they actually wish to attend!
As for jobs being in "short supply" - that is also absolutely nonsensical. There are huge numbers of part time and full time jobs available for people who wish to work. Are they necessary particularly glamorous or 9-5 jobs? Maybe not, but if you want to work and earn money there are LOADS of jobs out there. Just have to knuckle down and find them and work hard. There's also nothing stopping these kids from setting up their own businesses or finding their own ways to make money - everything from mowing lawns to being carers to being tutors. There's all manner of jobs out there - they just have to put the work in to finding them.

Why do they need financial support for living costs if they are going to uni? They can get part time jobs and also student loans. As soon as they turn 18 then it's on them as adults to support themselves. If they want help from you or their father they can ask each of you for that help - but you aren't obligated to provide it. Why are you going to ask him for more help anyway? As soon as the kids turn 18 they are adults: they need to act like adults - if they want to continue to live with you then they need to understand the rules for doing that and your expectations for bills and their contribution. And if they should be having the sam conversation with their father.

Neither you nor their father are under any obligation to provide them with any support once they turn 18. The fact you want to help them is nice, but it's not an obligation, and it's certainly not something their father has to do.

Plenty of young people receive absolutely no parental assistance of any kind when they turn 18 (or before in many cases). If they want your and your ex-husband's help with university and living costs they need to buck up and communicate with you both about it.

At 18 years of age you twins are classed as adults. Generally it is expected they get jobs to support themselves for nights out, clothes etc. My daughter is off to uni in September, she is 18, she has had part time work since she was 16, working in a trampoline park and now in a shop. I do think you are out of order, your ex partner shouldn't and is no longer required to send you maintenance. They now need to take some responsibility for themselves and you do too

If they are going to uni you didn’t sort out your divorce properly to include uni, gap years and masters you can ask but expect the answer to be uni isn’t compulsory and they can get a job and save up. X

You can apply to the courts under the Children’s Act. My ex paid ds until he left university.

And my point is it's meant to cover half of the remaining essential costs after other benefits, such as DLA and CB, which are not means tested, are accounted for. It's also not 10% of income, it's 12% of pre-tax income so more like 15% of net pay. Our child doesn't cost anything like 30% of our net pay on top of CB.

Child maintenance isn't taken into account for benefits anyway so even if your ex paid a million pound a month you would still be entitled to UC

Surely he can pay that to them directly. Why does it need to go through you?

I thought the idea Oxford and Cambridge don't allow students to have jobs sounded made up (I have had friends who did both), a quick Google proves it's nonsense, lots advertised and not a hint it is not allowed.

I have no idea why you need clarification. I was crystal clear in my statement that my son's father should be made to pay more so that state benefits could be reduced accordingly. Perhaps if fathers were made to pay more than 10% of their income towards their children, we wouldn't be seeing vulnerable people having their benefits reduced or stopped and perhaps there might be hope of a pension when we retire.

That’s the case currently, above a very low income limit.

The cost of meeting complex needs is expensive in time, money and mental health.

Wow, the amount of time I spend fighting for my kid, do you think I have time for this shit? You don't know what you're talking about and you're wilfully misrepresenting why I said; that child maintenance is never 50%. And it's not. And not that you deserve any explanation but no, the costs associated with my kids' complex needs are not covered by DLA and the £400 his father pays does not match the amount of DLA and UC that the state has to pay, because he's a POS deadbeat dad who would pay nothing if he could get away with it. Now piss off back to the male defence league.

I’m trying to clarify you think a parent shouldn’t qualify for benefits, including for a disabled child, if the child’s other parent was wealthy and contributing a lot. Is that what you’re saying?