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'm with MrsTerryPratchett on this. My starting principles would be that no civilised society should allow children to live in poverty, and that no parent should be allowed to avoid providing for their children.

Maintenance should be set at a realistic level - either the realistic cost of raising a child, or a salary-related amount, if that's more. That would be the "maintenance benefit" payable, to the RP, but for the child - benefits that the RP would be entitled to claim as an adult would be in addition, and those benefits wouldn't be affected by the "maintenance benefit".

Then the maintenance would be claimed by the State from the NRP, with proper sanctions for non-payment, so that no parent could refuse to pay. Ideally, this would be through social pressure, in that non-payment of maintenance would be seen as a shameful thing (because it is completely fucking shameful for a parent to refuse to support their child, actually), but I'd settle for imprisonment. Or perhaps a mild form of torture, like prodding them in the fleshy parts with a knitting needle every ten minutes or so until they paid up (which would also have the benefit of creating jobs for those who displayed a talent for sticking knitting needles in the fleshy parts of the feckless NRPs. Win-win).

Then the maintenance would be claimed by the State from the NRP

why aren't benefits set at an appropriate amount and child maintenance paid to the state if maintenance isn't included in the computation?

If it really cost that much to raise a child then anybody who was a lone parent (after death of a spouse) whilst working a minimum wage job would quite literally starve as there would be no food left for them to eat after providing for their child

I think you need to include the costs we all pay, whether we have dependent children or not: schools, hospitals, and so on. We draw on the state most when we're dependent children (or parents of) and if we're lucky enough to have a good long life -- often in the last couple of years of ols age, our use of the NHS &etc is high.

So I expect that's where it comes from. I read somewhere that each child costs the state (ie all of us) around £100k to raise to independent adulthood. In addition to the costs parents bear.

OPs DH is also paying money to subside her children

Um, the children are actually those of the OP's DH! But I suppose as long as his children are on the poverty line. not below it then their father doesn't mind?

Three times sock? I'd been assuming my question must be hypothetical! The only times I ever heard about cases where people had that much in their bank accounts was when it genuinely was capital- inheritances and the like. Were they done for criminal offences?

3 times over 20 years. One was prosecuted one not (the CM lump sum paid in after the claim was submitted) the third went to tribunal and won because she had had 19k in her acc then out within minutes (loan payment paid to her in error) but that one still took her almost a year to resolve.

Given how well I remember them shows how unusual it is

What I can't understand is why maintenance isn't taken straight out of fathers accounts on a weekly basis. Then at least the mothers know they are definitely going to be getting their money as and when they should.

What I can't understand is why maintenance isn't taken straight out of fathers accounts on a weekly basis.

That would require the NRP to have that amount in their account every week. Very easy to just lift your cash out as soon as it comes in to avoid paying CM.

That's how they keep getting away with not paying isn't it :(

That's how they keep getting away with not paying isn't it

working cash in hand, regularly changing jobs, working through agencies, working for family who are willing to keep you off the books, being self employed, having a new partner that you run your accounts through, having your own limited company....all these are ways of getting away without paying.

Three times sock? I'd been assuming my question must be hypothetical!

I wasn't on benefits at the time so it didn't actually affect it but due to a lump sum of arrears for maintenance I got more than the £16k in one payment so it would once in my account have fallen foul of the capital rules but if it had been paid weekly over time as it should have been it wouldn't have. I do know that there have been a few cases where after several years the CSA have managed to get a lump sum to clear arrears.

Yes its one of the ways strawberry there are many. Its pathetically easy to avoid paying.

I know someone, used to be a friend but not any more, who set up a company all in his new wifes name. She owned everything on paper. He claimed to be a SAHD so had no earnings, and didnt pay anything to his ex.

Just before new wife and him split up, they sold the company, he trousered the money and left the country. Oddly enough the new wife who was so happy to go along with this if it meant his ex didnt get a penny was incensed when he refused to pay her any maintenance for their children! To my knowledge he is still in Thailand and not paying for any of his kids, but is on the bones of his arse due to labour rules out there and his money ran out. What goes around comes around.....

I used to think the same way as you did OP when I was with my ex and we were paying his maintenance to his child's Mother. Then I found myself in the child's mother's shoes and recently all maintenance has stopped with no notice. Now I've realised first hand how crap it would have been had my benefits been reduced due to his maintenance payments. I wouldn't have been able to cover my bills this month.

Sorry not read the whole thread but when universal credit comes in shortly then maintenance will be taken into account. It is currently technically possible for people who have high maintenance payments to claim CTC but I can't imagine many of them would do that (me included) from a moral POV tbh.

I can't remember tbh needaholidaynow as it was a while ago - I remember hearing/reading that UC will replace CTC and that maintenance will be taken into account for calculating UC. That's my understanding anyway but I wonder if anyone else here knows?

CM will continue to be disregarded under UC (unless they change the rules)

gingerbread.org.uk/content/913/Whats-changing

www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out/child-maintenance-and-universal-credit

The wording on the second link might explain the confusion?

Apologies just checked that and it's spousal maintenance that will be taken into account not child maintenance (will try to link)

ttps://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/news-and-events/blogs/family-law-blog/universal-credit-to-be-reduced-pound-for-pound-by-spousal-maintenance

oops I can't really do links

So that will affect those negotiating payments - make the child payments very high eg father paying £20k school fees rather than £20k to the mother etc. or vice versa as in my case where mother earns a lot more of course.

This should be the link above.
www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/news-and-events/blogs/family-law-blog/universal-credit-to-be-reduced-pound-for-pound-by-spousal-maintenance

At least I have the simplicity of not getting a penny and having paid him for a clean break I suppose. I shall get my reward in heaven.

I haven't read the links above. One interesting issue is when pensions law changes so you can potentially withdraw all your pension at age 55 subject to tax at 20%. 40% or 45% on 75% of the whole sum that may be counted as capital to which you have access for those with pensions so if you are made bankrupt your creditors may be able to get their hands on the pension in a way apparently currently they cannot so easily. Although I do not really understand the difference - if I take my pension as a lump sum now there is a 55% exit charge/penalty. Under the new rules it's 45% in my case so why does that mean it is so much more accessible for bankruptcy purposes now compared to before?

Apologies just checked that and it's spousal maintenance that will be taken into account not child maintenance

So no change whatsoever from the current regime then.