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 didn't mind to be honest, it was his child too and I disagree with NRP's not paying maintenance. If I didn't feed my child I'd expect to go to prison so I don't get why so many don't bother to contribute (hence why I took him to court). I had nothing when she turned up though, a fourth hand sofa and a portable TV which was on the floor. I was living off £59 a week maternity allowance which I was using to pay for everything (hence why I lived off biscuits).

nousernamesleft I was in a slightly worse position than you, my maintenance payments were assessed as higher than income support so when he stopped paying and disappeared it left me with no money for about 3 months, I was living on just child benefit until csa would accept and confirm to dwp that no maintenance was being paid.

a child is not pay as you view.

If he wants regular contact go to court, get a court order that states his contact time.

Maintence is for the child not the RP.

I thought maintenance was counted towards benefits? The only reason I say this is because my husbands ex wife has asked for an increase in payments but for the extra to be paid into a seperate account so it doesn't get counted against her benefits. Is this not right??
She has asked for the extra to go into an account under her Dds name but my husband has said no he will split it equally in both his children's names. Does that sound strange?

No its not counted.

That's not right, jiggly. Also, if she has money going into her account that's unaccounted for, she'll get in trouble if they ask to see her bank statements. It shouldn't be going into children's accounts though, it's not pocket money and shouldn't be treated as such. It needs to go into hers really.

jiggly not sure about other benefits (been a long time out of that job) but if she is working and gets child/tax credits then definitely no, it's not counted.

It's not counted for housing/council tax benefit either. DLA is not means tested so it won't be counted for that.

I said to dh to make sure she lets her benefits' offices know as we don't want her getting stung.

That's not really your DH's concern. It certainly isn't yours.

Perhaps you need to learn to butt out focus on matters closer to home OP?

You are being unreasonable
Maintence payments and the arseache lack of security inherent in them can mean that women and children ( mostly. ) can quickly end in poverty

This will be the next blardy Tory bullshit

Yanbu

I live somewhere where benefits are affected by maintenance, dollar for dollar. The results of this are that women (generally) are worried constantly about whether the CM will come, have terrible nightmares with late payments, reduced payments, and worries about controlling men who know exactly how to play with the payments to keep their exes and DC in a constant state of anxiety. Frequently to get around this the NRPs 'buy diapers' instead of paying CM so that everyone is committing fraud gets benefits and can avoid this.

If I ran the world everyone with children would receive a 'living wage' whether from their wages or government benefits and the NRPs would owe me their share, Big Brother, not the RP and DC. That way I would be chasing them, removing the power/control aspect and meaning that RPs weren't plunged into poverty and forced to make nice with controlling arseholes. I would also lock up anyone who didn't pay for their DC if they were able.

Have you OP taken advantage of the reduction in the amount of maintenance your dp pays for his child, if you are living together with your DC? That to be honest is the bit of the csa that really annoys me, nrp's new partners children (not related to nrp) causing a reduction in what's paid to the children entitled to maintenance.

I strongly don't think maintenance should be counted for benefits. It certainly should never be counted until the CSA is fit for purpose and there are real sanctions on parents who don't pay.

When we went to live with my Grandparents maintenance was counted. My parents were ordered to pay £64 a week. When my grandfather lost his job though ill health that £64 a week was counted as income, but my parents (later just my father - their son - was liable to pay £30 a week) never paid a penny. We were skint, my grandparents had lost their main source of income (My Nan like many women her age/generation had little jobs rather than a career) and had 4 children landed on them that they were never expecting.

I think there are far more families like mine who rely on money for essentials than there are people absolutely coining it in with loads of benefits and shitloads of maintenance.

We used to have candlelight picnics which I didn't realise for years were because the electric had run out. I had 'duvet days' which seemed like a real treat, but I know are because I'd ripped my tights/trousers beyond mending for the umpteenth time, but they couldn't afford new ones that day.

I'd rather see a handful of people coining it in than (considerably more) children in homes like mine screwed because every single week their budget basically has £64/£30 stolen from it.

Not RTFT but wanted to say that a few years back maintenance was counted as income when claiming benefits. THis left my cousin trying to heat her home and feed and clothe herself and her DD on £11 a week, as that is what she was paid via Income Support.

Her DDs father had left and was calculated by the CSA as needing to pay £X, so that was deducted from her IS and she was paid the remainder, except he didnt pay it. The CSA had to track him down, give him a certain number of weeks to respond, then contact his employers to confirm his employment status, then ask again, then get a deduction from earnings order, then wait the 6 weeks for it to be implemented...by which time he had resigned and moved to the USA. Overall this took 5 months. 5 Months where she was practically living at her mums (whilst still officially living at her council place paid for by HB because it took 2 years for her to get it in the first place) because she couldnt afford food, never mind gas and electric etc.

After he left the country it was sorted because they couldnt chase him for CM while he was there. Except that after 6 months he came back (visa issues) and it all started again.

THAT is why CM doesnt form part of any benefit payment, because for every responsible parent who pays, there will be 10 that dont and scores of kids that suffer because of ist

YABU

Having just read a couple of threads where women are faced with having the leave abusive husbands, the idea of cutting back on benefits for single parents is appalling to me. It it so hard for a woman to take that step anyway, but if she and her children could end up starving or on the street, she would just have to stay, won't she?

Cheeseandgherkins
It may be him who has to pay, but the reality is that it is 'we' who do pay. In a shared household the cost is managed by both. I think the op is getting an unnecessarily hard time here, she has accepted that she is bu but is continuing to be bombarded with replies which are loaded with hostility towards nrp and new partners. Not all nrp are twats, not all new partners are trying to short change rps. Some of them are actually quite nice and trying to do the best for the kids. OP was confused about something, she's had that clarified, why the need to keep driving home how it's got nothing to do with her and her husbands a twat?

Ok, thanks. She does work part time, and has asked for extra for hobbies etc for the children so that's why the money is going in seperate accounts now. I think!

Havent read the thread fully but I did notice people pecking at the op insinuating £10 a day wasnt enough to raise a child and cant help but wonder what planet these people are on ??! £70 a week is more than enough to raise a child (( actually £140 per week based on the fact a mother is also responsible for a childs existence and should also contribite ))

Not everyone earns masses of money, whether theyre nrp or not........some people on here seem to live on la la land where money is concerned.

For one the ex won't get much housing benefit so will still have yo pay over half the rent and council tax.

2 yabu because many if not nearly all maintenance is unreliable unless it comes straight from the paycheck but hey they could always quite their job.

Get your head out your ass and use your brain.

It is not about the RPs income, it us about the NRP paying their share towards their child!

Even if the RP is a millionaire then the NRP still needs to pay up.

I agree with you OP.

I think where single parents are claiming benefits, maintenance should be paid through an agency and then benefits should be adjusted accordingly. It would be a much better way to ensure that all parents, resident or not, pay for the children they create. Maintenance should be more directly linked to what it costs to raise a child, rather than income as well.

If maintenance was paid through an agency, then the agency would be able to ensure that the RP gets the money they need, and if the NRP doesn't pay then it's their responsibility to recover it. They should have powers to take money directly from wages, and to legally enforce payments. If parents don't pay for their children, they shouldn't be allowed a passport, or a driving licence, and failing to pay would be a criminal offence.

£70 a week is more than enough to raise a child (( actually £140 per week based on the fact a mother is also responsible for a childs existence and should also contribite )

It is certainly enough to feed and clothe...but children also need the following:

A home to live in
Heat and light
Toys
Furniture for bedroom
School trips
Extra curricular activities
Birthday parties
Oh and childcare if the RP is working.