AIBU to think that maintenance SHOULD affect benefit entitlement?

[IJustCantBelieveIt]

Don't want to drip feed, but don't want to go on and on.

My dh and I have been together for 4 years (married for 2) he has a 7 year old ds from a previous relationship. He has always paid maintenance, even though his ex is very difficult with contact. When we met, it was £53 a week. It is now £78 a week (these are based off of the statutory amounts, but elevated a little) We don't have a problem with paying. It is after all his ds.

His ex has had 2 more dc since they split, both have different fathers, who she is also no longer with. She works part time (well 24 hours a week) at weekends when her dc are at respective fathers' or with her mother. Both other fathers pay maintenance for their respective dc.

Now what has got me thinking is that we have just reviewed payment amount and increased it. I said to dh to make sure she lets her benefits' offices know as we don't want her getting stung. She got back to us saying that maintenance has no impact on her benefits.

How can this be? Out of curiosity, we did a benefit calculation with her circumstances and it shows as eligible for almost £500 a week. Plus her weekly earnings and maintenance payments from dh (haven't a clue what the other fathers pay, so we didn't include it) she is getting over £3000pcm.

Surely, maintenance payments should be counted as an income for her dc if nothing else. I thought benefits were calculated to make sure that families had enough money to live on. I don't begrudge that we pay maintenance, but she shouldn't also be receiving money to pay for her children from the govt, as I believe over £10 per day is sufficient for keeping a child? I don't know what to think. Anyone understand why this is like it is? Or am I just BU?

I don't disagree. I think perhaps the problem is that it is generally assumed the state, rather than the child's parent, will pay.

It's because a lot of maintenance isn't paid regularly. If benefits were reduced because of maintenance then a lot of the most vulnerable families could find themselves without money coming in if the payments were stopped and benefits had to keep being readjusted.

A child costs far more than 10 per day.

The reason benefit payments are not included in benefits calculations if for the benefit of the children. It also encouraged people to make informal, and insecure, child maintenance arrangements.

So yes I think yabu.

Did you check how the £500 benefits was broken down? Housing benefit and council tax benefit is money she will never see, and child benefit is universal to all except higher rate tax payers. The trouble with benefits being affected by maintenance is that maintenance can be unreliable!

If your Dh paid the real amount it costs to bring up a child ,then that combined with her wages would mean no benefits were needed. Seems the better solution to me.

It's because not everyone receives CM and there are huge issues if the NRP suddenly doesn't make a payment or decides to change the amount leaving the RP without an income.

Yes I think it should affect benefit entitlement. I read about somebody who was getting £4k per month and was still entitled to benefit.

They used to include it. Sadly it plunged many families into serious poverty because shed loads of NRP's did not pay it.

At the time I worked for the dwp it was deeply unpleasant to witness.

I would also be quite a bit raisey eyebrows about someone who is full of encouragement for reducing a households income where a child they profess to love lives.

And why are you involving yourself in issuing instructions to your DH's ex surely how she manages her financial affairs is not your business.

It's also never a wise idea to be running benefit entitlement checkers for people that are not you. You cannot possibly know every single circumstance that would change received amount and many if them are not especially accurate

Council tax benefit no longer exists

So she has '£500' a week coming in. How much more do you have? She's a lone parent, and has to pay for everything (assuming she doesn't have another partner). You have the luxury of 2 incomes. You can share the food bill, share the electricity bill etc but she can't do this. I doubt your DH's contribution scratches the surface of what she spends on their child per week so she needs this topping up.

You're not coming across very well from what you've written here.

I didn't think of it in terms of the maintenance stopping. I wouldn't consider my 2dc as costing £10 a day each though, for all 4 of us, our daily expenditure works out at around £30. Without the dc, our mortgage, council tax, utility bills and so on, would still be payable, no extra is incurred (well perhaps a bit of water to wash and hydrate them) So really the expense of them is in clothing and food, toys and so on. I think £10 a day covers that.
But I guess I am just so used to the payments, that it didn't occur not all parents do pay.
Therefore I guess I am BU. Thanks

In the early days of the CSA, child maintenance was taken into account. All it took was one or two missing payments for the RP to find (mainly) herself in dire financial circumstances; what power this gave to an abusive ex! At least back then there was access to emergency funding, there's bugger-all now.

I do understand the outrage expressed in some previous posts, but the vast majority of RPs aren't on £3-4k pcm.

What needsasockamnesty said.

I also used to work for DWP.
The hassle for claimants when Maintenance wasn't received was epic.

YABU because her income has absolutely nothing to do with you. And even if she was earning £100k per year, your DH would still have to pay the same.

Which is kind of the point. The maintenance shouldn't be her income (which it would become if her benefits were reduced by that amount), the maintenance should be your DHs contribution to the raising of his child. Right now, benefits and working are her income, which is her contribution to the raising of her children.

Many (many) years ago I worked in the civil service benefits department. In fact it was that long ago that it was called Supplementary Benefit at the time, but I digress.

Maintenance was taken into account but there was an initial 'disregard' though I can't remember the actual amount.

A few years ago I was applied for Tax/Child credits due to low wages. I didn't think I'd qualify due the fairly generous (unofficial) maintenance I received from ex-DP but had been encouraged to fill in the form. They didn't take any of it into account and I was astounded It was totally disregarded.

I couldn't believe that someone getting, for example, £4000 a week from a wealthy ex-P would also qualify for help. Just to clarify, that wasn't what I was getting!

I think it should be counted although I understand why it isn't.

My DBs ex was getting maintenance from him and from the father of her daughter, working part-time (because full time with children would be too stressful for her ) and claiming all the benefits, childcare, etc she could. Overall she had a higher annual income than a lot of my friends who work

I do not want their income reduced at all. She does have a partner, to whom she is engaged, he earns well but doesn't live with her.
She may not see the housing allowance money, but she won't be having rental costs to see either.
I know of many families that have 3 dc and don't earn £38,000 a year or receive benefit. They manage as far as I can tell, maybe I am just ignorant in my own money savvy-ness.
Thanks for all replies.

I know £4K a month is in no way typical. But I simply cannot see why the taxpayer should fork out for benefit for people who have that amount of money or even half that coming into the house.

Well then lets reduce the benefits of all those (thousands of people) who may or may not receive the basic £21 per week, so that we definitely make sure we don't give anything to the few hundred that have a wealthy and reliable ex partner.

This is beside the point but if she's working 24 hours a week it's likely she doesn't get income support anyway or housing benefit though I could be wrong. It's more likely she gets tax credits.

This is not the point though. There's no way maintenance should be counted toward benefit means testing and thank god it isn't any more.

But just to add I agree why it is technically fair not to include the maintenance.

As people have said, 'back in the day' some ex-P's stopped paying, It was heartbreaking to have mothers coming to the office pleading for an emergency payment because they couldn't afford to feed their children as £30 had been knocked off their benefits due to the assumption they were getting maintenance.

4k a month won't go very far if you're living in London and spending 2k a month to keep a roof over your head. Then there's council tax benefit which she won't see, then there's the other bills on top, then there's food and clothes... etc...

He is the father yes, a DNA test proved that for him as she denied it. (Short relationship, fell pregnant almost immediately and claimed that it was an ex child as she had been having an affair while they dated and got together) That is the reason they didn't stay together. But as much as it is right that he supports his ds, it is right that he should be allowed a stable relationship with him too. I wasn't suggesting that he shouldn't have to pay, just that she is unfair in that respect.
I am sorry for starting this thread though, as I seem to have upset a couple of people in my sheer confusion. Sorry, but thanks for replies all the same.