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?

FlowerFairy2014 I like the sound of the wanted posters, can we include any arrears for maintenance too please

"But then maybe I just know families that the children have 2 homes and 2 involved parents."
please do not tell me that that does not sound smug. In particular the 'then' and 'just'.
and yes it is normal for NRPs to try and get out of paying, duh, that is why the CSA was set up.

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).

Is that you Xenia?

I think you might have misread the OP.

it's no more smug than you inditing ALL NRPs as deadbeats because then maybe you just know the situation in reverse.

in both cases it's just projecting your own situation onto others.

just as it's easy to hear about people who never see their kids and believe it's because they don't care, or believe it's because the NRP plays stupid games and denies contact.

I am not doing that though.
btw it is 'indict'

I wonder what gingerbread say about the proportion of paying and none paying or paying under duress NRP's

If only they collated information on this sort of thing,if only information like that was available

I think 50/50 should be the starting point a court gives after a split them neither side would have to pay maintainence.

Where that's not possible, the the NRP should pay and it should be deducted from benefits. Its daft to exclude it when it's maintainence but when it's a salary and the couple live together it's taken into account. Technically it penalises couples who live together.

It it was deducted, it may mean it's not seen as the default for PWC to claim benefits which then in turn benefits the children and society.

I really don't think it is normal for people to try and get out of paying for their children. Those that do are the small scummy minority in my experience. There are plenty of separated parents that manage perfectly well without the need for courts or the CSA.

But those that don't pay should be forced to pay, and that's why I'd prefer a system that made them pay for the benefits that are enabling their children to survive, so that the RP isn't reliant on maintenance and will receive the same amount however successful or not the government is at extracting money from a non paying NRP.

"that's why I'd prefer a system that made them pay for the benefits that are enabling their children to survive, so that the RP isn't reliant on maintenance and will receive the same amount however successful or not the government is at extracting money from a non paying NRP."

I think that was the point of the CSA to start with. Not sure what happened.

As for tax credits? These are NOT benefits!

Of course tax credits are a benefit. The name tax credit is just not an accurate reflection of what they are. People who are unemployed can get tax credits and people on low incomes can get tax credits. If you are getting more in tax credits than you are paying in taxes (which most tax credit claimants will be)then it is a benefit. It is not only the unemployed that get benefits.

What happened is that they weren't given any power or resources, so the consequence of the crap CSA is that we have the state paying whatever they decided a single parent family needs in their particular circumstances, and with a lot of ineffectual paper shuffling at the CSA office, some single parents sometimes get a bit extra as a bonus.

hmm, sounds about right

I have 2 friends. They are both single parents who do not work due to having 2 small dc's each. They both receive benefits inc housing benefits. Both ex's are very good with payments and spending time with the dc.

However, one of the ex's works in a normal office job earning around £25,000 a year and the other is earning mega bucks, director of very successful company. Therefore one of my friends lives almost a jet setting lifestyle on the back of the taxpayer. She affords far more than other friend and myself. It isn't her fault but the rules of the government although I can see why they do it for all the reasons surrounding Dads who do not pay/miss payments. It's a no win situation really.

I think that was the point of the CSA to start with. Not sure what happened

I would hazard a guess that what happened is that computer systems aren't fit for the job meaning too much work is done clerically which means that the constant chopping and changing with NRPs who can't/won't pay regularly means that it's cheaper to just pay benefits/tax credits to PWC knowing that a percentage wouldn't get anything if they were means-tested with maintenance than it is to pay for the staff to handle it. (and breathe!)

I would like to think that what happened is that the Government realised that a very, very clever NRP could make the life of a PWC absolute hell from a financial perspective and therefore removed the means-testing to stop this happening and ensure that they could say that they were at least trying to ensure that children have the basics in life. But that would mean politicians have hearts.

His first child is not being raised in poverty, far from it.

So clearly the mother can afford her second child. This isnt comparable to your DH choosing to have two more that he cant afford.

It isn't a no win situation. The government should make parents responsible for paying for their children where they earn enough to do so. If that means that the govt pay the RP upfront in benefits and then collect the amount back from the NRP through PAYE or similar (to avoid non payment and RPs being left in poverty) then so be it. But the taxpayer should not be paying for children that are already being funded by their parents who might be earning quite a lot.

'I always find it downright bizarre when people shout about the NRP's "right" to a new family.

If a person can afford 2 children then that's the most children they should have. They shouldn't suddenly feel like they have a "right" to more children because they've got a new relationship.'

Exactly. It is always a choice to enter into a relationship with a person who has children by a previous one, and there are consequences to that, such as not being to afford to sprog up every partner you get with.

I meant with the current way of working inthedark. But absolutely agree with the altering of the whole benefits system to make it fair.

Sadly the small scummy "minority" of NRPs that don't pay for their children are actually the overwhelming majority. Nearly two-thirds of SPs receive no maintenance at all.

(From the Gingerbread website)

"Only two-fifths (38 per cent) of single parents receive maintenance from their child’s other parent (31)
For all those with an agreement for child maintenance (both through the CSA and private arrangement) the median weekly amount received is £46 per family (32)
The average amount of child maintenance liable to be paid through the CSA is currently £33.50 per week (£22.50 if all cases with a weekly assessment of zero are included in the average). (33) Among parents with care in receipt of income-related benefits, the average amount is £23 (excluding cases with a weekly assessment of zero) (34)
Of single parents receiving child maintenance through the CSA, 40 per cent receive less than £10 per week, 38 per cent receive between £10 and £50 per week and 22 per cent receive more than £50 per week (35)"

There's no really much point in this thread tbh. Those that are getting a a decent amount of maintenance and living it up at the expense of the taxpayer are few and far between.

Most of that is about CSA. I don't have full faith in statistics like that that, there are too many separated families that have had no involvement with courts or the CSA or gingerbread to even be on the radar.

thank you Jack for that info

As woo woo said, many child maintenance payments don't feature in the stats because not everyone pays through the CSA or CMS. It is possible for people to make and stick to private agreements.

I definitely think that maintenance should be taken into account.

Hypothetically you could have a nrp earning £2m a year and paying thousands a month in maintenance and the nrp still entitled to JSA and Tax Credits. Which is crazy.

The rp could be entitled that is.