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?

Needs That would be me. Actually, they did once buy DC a small toy (Night Garden themed) because they thought it would be unfair for her not to have one because they'd bought their other DD something. They then asked me to hand over £15 for it

lol bf, no they really are not 'alike' not at all, not for us, and not for any other single mothers I know.

bf to be honest, I think the NRPs you know are probably the exception to the rule. x

needaholidaynow -

So you need your income (rightly so) to pay for your own children too?

What if I have a baby with my new partner? His income would have to stretch over 3 children's day to day costs, not just his own one child.

well I can only go based on what I know in this area and they are alike here

But then maybe I just know families that the children have 2 homes and 2 involved parents.

Friend of mine has to send food with the children when they visit their father, they also never stay there because he hasn't got the room.

good for you then bf1000, how smug you sound.

I think it is terrible that NRP arent providing room/bed and the RP is sending food - surely this isn't the norm everywhere else?

As for tax credits? These are NOT benefits! Otherwise the vast majority of the low paid working population in the UK would be 'on benefits'. I get tax credits (and a small amount of housing benefit if you must know) for my two and I work full time!

Tax credits are benefits.

How do I sound smug?
DIxie My NRP friends take unpaid leave/flexible work so that they can collect children from school have them on inset days/when ill so that one parent work doesn't suffer more than the other.

I think it's more the norm than what you describe bf100, sadly

My ex has actually asked me to contribute food money or even actual food when our children stay. He has a set a PJ's for them but I supply day clothes and they rarely go anywhere except the park. They also share a camp bed on the floor when they stay too.

Ex and I were together 7 years and conceived our two children together knowingly and in happiness. Yet they are an afterthought now. But what he offers is deemed as being a 'great dad' by everyone we know and indeed his current partner. It makes me very sad that our two children were here first in the world but are now treat second by everyone bar me and my DP

bf read back your post of 15.54 - to me it sounds incredibly smug.
and how many 'NRP friends' do you have ? one? two?
I bet you live in Brighton. lol.

As much as I think benefits are by no means 'too generous' in a way I have to agree, my sister is a single parent and gets £400pm CSA from her ex, he also pays for her shopping. She has £800 per month disposable income (I help with her finances so I am not guessing) , allot more than most people, so I do think they should consider it

It's very hard to generalise. It's very simple for me. I paid my ex on the divorce and I have the children 365 nights a year and pay for everything 100% ( his choice) and I work full time and get no child benefit or tax credits or housing benefits.

I know many fathers who pay school fees of £60k a year (2 children boarding) for their children. In fact I believe my children's father paid about £10k a year for a girl friend's child's school fees for a year or two (despite not paying anything to his own children).

I would say most decent working fathers do pay and do see their children but I would certainly support their being forced to have the children half the time and both parents forced to pay half the costs of the children.

Why do you want this child to be in poverty?
Can't you be pleased that they have the same opportunities afforded to a two parent household?
especially as this is your FAMILY.

Unbelievable.

Forced to have their children? That would be very nice for the unwanted children wouldn't it.

I would certainly support their being forced to have the children half the time and both parents forced to pay half the costs of the children

I support 50/50 where it is wanted but to force a parent who does not want would be harmful to the child.

This is what I would like - that the law is a default 50% with each parent and if the parents agree otherwise or the court says otherwise then but only then it changes. At present the NRP can apply to have contact with the child but the child has no right to make the NRP see them nor does the resident parent have any right even to one night off a year. If these absent men were named and shamed that might help a bit - big wanted posters "Mr Smith has chosen not to see or contact his children for 6 months" kind of thing.

I don't think that BF sounds smug. and more that you sound bitter.

It's just two different experiences.

Frankly, as an NRP I do make every chance I can get to see my child, and pay as much as I can towards them, even though it's meant that I've missed out on a lot of things and gotten into debt etc.

I can't see how anyone wouldn't put any child that they conceived above anything else in their life regardless of order of conception.

However I'm well aware that some people just don't, some people skip jobs, houses and even the country trying to get out of their obligations for the lives that they created.

I'm pretty sure that in the situation that BF said that the costs are the same on both households.
however that's not to say that they can't be stacked vastly different in either direction.

I don't for a moment think that the "normal" thing is so very many people trying to get out of obligations to their kids.
most people pay/contribute to their offspring -it's what you're meant to do.