friend may go to prison for benefit fraud. AIBU to think its unfair her partner will get off scot free?

[balenciaga]

there is a back story here, which i will try and keep brief. my good friend has been with a guy on and off for 4 years, he was amazing at first and promised the earth as they do, then he became very abusive (mentally, physically and financially) and she was frightened of him. He even left her twice for 2 different women but she took him back. However, 2 months ago she finally left him (thank god) and moved back home to her mums and is starting again, looking for a house, a job etc.

she has 4 dcs and turns out she was claiming as a single parent the whole time he was with her :( I am not making excuses for her but she was scared to stop claiming as he would not contribute financially and she was scared of not being able to pay bills, eat etc. Also, he pressured her into keeping claiming (which I can WELL believe) and assured her it would be fine, no one would know etc - basically so he could carry on spending his wages like water living rent free and doing whatever the fuck he pleased.

she only told me a few weeks ago what had happened. while she was still with her ex, she had been called in for an interview with the fraud team at DWP as they had suspicions and she confessed it all to them. I couldn't believe she had done it TBH but as much as I absolutely do not condone what she's done I can kind of understand her reasons, its not black and white, yes I did think why the hell did you not leave him earlier etc but its not that easy is it :(

her court date was yesterday. because of the length of time she kept the fraud up for and the amount of money involved (over 33k and that's just HB and income support - ie before tax credits even ) the judge pretty much decided as soon as she went in that the case would go straight to Crown. Her solicitor has warned her that a prison sentence is a real possibility :(

AIBU to think this could be quite a common reason for women committing benefit fraud? and that the law seriously needs looking at and these cocklodging bastards of an ex should also be made accountable?? it takes two ffs !!

It honestly still surprises me the reaction of some.
The same type of people who watch Benefits st and crow about the squalor and state people live revert back to the life of luxury whine when fraud is mentioned.
33k over four years with four kids doesn't buy much.

I think a lot of posters are underestimating the duress an abusive man (woman) can place their partner under. The courts routinely underestimate the same.

In a manipulative relationship, the dynamics are entirely different from in a healthy one. It has been demonstrated many times that the oppressed partner in such a relationship has 'warped' thought processes. Such women (or men) become disproportionately preoccupied with conflict avoidance (think whipped puppy) and constantly 'managing' the situation at the expense of much else. This is a psychological pathology borne of abuse.

The other aspect of the story that jumps out are this chap's comings and goings. If the woman concerned had reported each change in the household make-up correctly, she would have had all her benefits frozen and recalculated each time. This can take 3 months sometimes. Three months without income (maybe some child benefit) with four children is a major problem. If he left and returned frequently, she could have found herself without income for large portions of each year. There is no effective second-tier safety net. I man like this would typically be isolating her from family, friends and other sources of support. It is quite possible that she felt trapped and without options or agency.

This is all hefty mitigation, i think.

Also; when interviewed on entering refuge, a lot of abused women disclose that their abusers have used threats of reporting them to DWP or Social Services as a means of control. Often the abusers have been instrumental in bringing about the circumstances they are threatening to report. This is so common, it is almost routine.

I think another way of asking OP's question is;

"Do abusive men use the benefit system as another weapon against their victims?"

" Never mind that in this case he was abusive but generally why should a new partner suddenly pay for her and four children just because he wants a relationship with her? It is very strange and makes the woman horribly dependent on a new partner. "

And this^^

Contributing to the household is different to taking financial responsibility for someone else's kids. Yes, his own outgoings would be shared (gas, electric, rent) but being expected to cover all the children's expenses AS WELL when they aren't his...

Not that I agree with what she's done in any way, I can UNDERSTAND why she's done it. And I can understand the feeling that why should a man have to take financial responsibility for children that are not his, just because he loves (not sure in this case) their mother.

I think the system does work against single parents when they start co-habiting with someone that isn't their children's other parent, although I can see why it is the way it is. Not sure that there is an easy answer - oh wait, how about getting the absent parents TO PAY THEIR WAY. No, much easier to put all the responsibility on the parent left with the children.

I hope she doesn't get a custodial sentence, but is compelled to receive some kind of counselling to enable her to make better choices of partner. I suspect that, as a pp said, that amount went on normal day-to-day living and not expensive foreign holidays or flash cars.

Contributing to the household is different to taking financial responsibility for someone else's kids. Contributing to the household is different to taking financial responsibility for someone else's kids...

Why is it? (Not being snarky, I just genuinely don't see the difference.)

If his own outgoings have decreased by £x pw (because he's not paying rent, utilities, etc), and the woman's income has decreased by £y pw then I absolutely do think it reasonable that a new partner should be making up the difference and paying for the incremental increase in the woman's outgoings (mostly food).

CatThief... That's terrible, it really is. Is there anywhere she can go for help to get her case looked into and the children ultimately returned to her?

I'm absolutely of the opinion that once somebody conceives a child with somebody, BOTH are financially liable for that child. Regardless of blended families, every person should be made to financially support the child(ren) that they've biologically created. No exceptions whatsoever...

That would put a stop to men fathering children they don't take responsibility for - and deter women from having children with men with previous 'baggage' that they're (the men) still required to financially support.

The problem isn't just contributions based on his share Cinebar they take his entire income into consideration assuming he will be acting as husband and supporting the entire family.
Not just the money he is willing to give to cover her extra costs.

I don't really get why a man wouldn't want to contribute to the kids if he moves in with a family. He isn't just having a relationship with the woman and remaining as some alien lodger in the kids eyes. He's having a relationship with them too. I get that he's not "responsible" for them but I don't get why he wouldn't want to help pay for the family as a whole now he's part of it.

Does she have capacity to make her own medical decisions? Such as when she needs to see the gp for the chesty cough and when she only needs some cough bottle and bed rest?

Yes?

Then she has capacity to know she's breaking the law when she signs those forms.

The system doesn't allow for it Anon it will take income support at 1-1 ratio so the new partner giving 100 per week will make no difference to a new partner giving 1 per week.
If he earns enough to break the threshold of her means tested benefits then he is expected to support them.
Making her completely reliant on him for her and the kids.

He's not 'part of it' though is he, Anonymai? I think there's a distinct difference between a partner that wants to date/shag/'be looked after' by a single mum and one who wants to actively become part of the family.

I can understand why some women are very glad to find what they perceive, are partners to 'take them all on' but it doesn't seem to work out that way in reality. More likely that the mum takes on a new manchild.

But no-one should be moving a "new partner" in when they have kids. So no "new" partner is going to be taking responsibility for kids they barely know, they are paying appropriate costs for their family/household.

I get that this causes a problem when one of the parties is abusive, but its very difficult to run a system which allows people to claim under unproven duress without giving money to everyone.

Font... I didn't realise that, blimey...

If he was threatening her with physical violence then she will probably be able to plead duress in her defence/mitigation. I think it's unlikely she'll be sent to prison for a first offence and with 4 children to support - the court will consider the effect on the children when sentencing. Her confession and early guilty plea will definitely go in her favour (should reduce her sentence by 1/3) (although I'm confused - did she plead guilty and the magistrates are referring her to Crown Court for sentence or did she plead not guilty and is going to trial?) Ultimately though, as others have said, she is an adult who made her own decisions and must face the consequences - it is theft after all and just because it's "invisible"(well not really) doesn't make it any less serious than other forms of theft.

The problem isn't just contributions based on his share Cinebar they take his entire income into consideration assuming he will be acting as husband and supporting the entire family.

Yes, I get that. But - seriously - by moving in he is going to be saving himself hundreds of pounds per month compared to living as an independent adult. Why on earth shouldn't some of that saving go towards his new household? Particularly if the household's income has otherwise decreased as a result of him moving in?

He should be making up the incremental loss in the household's income and paying his incremental costs as a minimum. I bet you anything that he'd still have more money in his pocket than if he lived independently (assuming he's earning - and if he's not then it's less of an issue).

I just can't see that as "paying for someone else's kids". Because it isn't. It's behaving like a grown up member of a household that happens to have some children in it.

I don't understand, sorry.

OP, are any of the children his?

You said they were only together off and on for 4 years yet she has 4 children so I'm guessing not all are his, if any.

The man is not necessarily saving hundreds of pounds of living costs though. He will often go back to his parents during anytime he isn't cocklodging living with a partner.

There are men who seek out single mums because they are perceived as desperate or grateful and who will (and do) put up with crap men.
Single mums who have already 'failed' at a normal family life so are pushed further into a vulnerable position by a system that puts their independence on the line.

But Cinnabar what if he doesn't/ won't?

A friend of mine falsely claimed. Her dp moved in with her and she didn't tell the tax office. When they got caught he was let off as claim was in her name. She had just had a baby too so they put her on tag for a few weeks. That was all

That is a problem with the system. If a partner moves in and there the woman would lose x than of course he should support the housewold. After all he would have to pay rent etc anyway.

Cinnabar that's why I said that, yes his outgoings would be reduced, and would hers (as in gas, electric, rent) but taking financial responsibility for the kids means paying for school lunches, buying clothes, food, paying for clubs, everything that their other parent should be contributing to. He wouldn't just be making up the difference of benefits she loses for herself, he would be making up the difference in benefits she loses for the children.

So, say she receives £50 a week for herself, and £200 a week for her children (no idea, just using this as an example). Her own outgoings reduce by £20 per week (sharing utilities). Woohoo, an extra £20 per week in her pocket. But she loses her £50 in benefit because of the extra household income PLUS £100 of her children's benefit (again because of the increased household income). However, the man moving in says 'why should I have to pay out EXTRA for children that aren't mine?' In general, when you move in with someone (no children) a nice side effect is that your outgoings are shared, so you have extra disposable income. In this case, he will have less disposable income because of someone else's children.

I know this should all be made clear when anyone is moving in with someone that already has children, and I think it is pretty clear to most people that would be the case. But why should it? Why should his disposable income be reduced because he wants a relationship with someone that already has children? It's all very well saying don't get into a relationship with someone that already has children, or be prepared to pay for children that aren't yours when you get into a relationship with someone who has children, but that doesn't really address the problem. IMO the only way to address this is to MAKE SURE the absent parent pays for their children. After all, if they were still together they would be paying. It is far, FAR too easy for one to walk away without a backward glance and too easy to evade maintenance payments (although between evasion and calculation of payments - 15-25% depending on number of children -that's a whole different thread).

And I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just that I can see (and have been on - but without the fraud) both sides. It's very difficult and I think it takes a certain type of man to take financial responsibility for children that aren't his - especially if it appears that the biological father has managed to escape that responsibility.

Sorry, didn't realise that was so long!

The man is not necessarily saving hundreds of pounds of living costs though. He will often go back to his parents during anytime he isn't cocklodging

Then he should have been able to save loads of cash. Still no excuse.

Abusive situations aside, then this conversation needs to be had up front before he moves in. And if he can't or won't contribute then he doesn't get the privilege of moving in.