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?

£70 a week isn't enough to raise a child on. There's the cost of an extra room, there's extra heating (you wouldn't let a newborn/small child/asthmatic child sleep in a cold room), there's childcare (the childcare element of the childcare tax credits only covers 70% and there's a limit as to how much they will pay), there's clothes, nappies, toys, activities, books, extra food, shoes, birthday/Christmas presents, travel to school/the GP/dentist, medication like paracetamol/cough medicine/teething gel which isn't free/bedding for your child's bed. Try getting all of this for £70 a week.

"The cost of raising a child to the age of 21 has soared to £222,458, with parents paying 58% more than a decade ago, according to a study published today. The annual 'cost of a child: from cradle to college' report by insurer LV= found that the average cost is up by more than £4,000 since last year.Jan 24, 2013"

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/24/cost-to-raise-a-child-compared-to-decade-ago

£70 a week wouldn't scratch the surface of what I spend by the way. Travel to school alone is £40 a week.

They used to be included (and indeed you used to get tax relief on maintenance payments) but not any more.
I pay 100% of what my children cost as do many single parent full time working mothers. it's not very fair but that's how things are.

As for what it costs to bring up a child it is very hard to generalise. Our court order says I pay the school and university fees for the 5 so that's £50k out of taxed income before you start.... then at the start we had full time childcare - nanny for two so £30k out of taxed income. Then add in the cost of housing 5 children in London - massive mortgage which their father who chooses not to see or house them does not pay... girls had two horses in stables - I paid for those. Etc etc in other words yes basic food - a loaf of bread some eggs etc, a few clothes from the charity shop and one child who shares your bed does not have to cost a lot but it's all relative really.

i would much more favour children being with both parents 50% of the time who then split all costs such as childcare and split any child benefit too 9 not that I get that - the Government stripped me as a single full time working mother of all child benefit so they could ensure they had more money to spend on women who choose not to work or work short hours.

pmsl at 10 being enough to raise a child per day. I'd love to live where you do Op, housing stock must be soooooooooo cheap

If the Govt pulled their fingers out of their arses and actually invested in properly enforcing child maintenance, making it unthinkable for a NRP not to pay and painful consequences if they didnt and also made the minimum amount more than a pittance (£2.50 a week anyone? ) then i would totally agree with you OP however as it is the Govt are happy to ignore this massive societal issue and so they must fork out for the shortfall that all that missing child maintenance leaves. Ive said it before but the CM system needs a massive overhaul but it wont happen any time soon.

Plus, are you really sure that she earns at least 2200 take home pay per month on a 24 hour week? If that's the case then i applaud her, it must be very hard working at such a senior level when you're a single parent of three.

and leave women at the mercy of men who may or may not pay, or pay late, or use the threat of abject poverty to control them?

No thanks.

I'd rather see failure to pay for your children become something this country took really seriously and see some actual consequences for people who choose to try to dodge out of paying a penny.

£11 a week for four children here self employment clearly pays. What is so frustrating is I know exactly how much he earns £3-4K a month
Not all NRP are nice people.

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.

Ooh now that's interesting. I've been reading about Universal Basic Income today and although I don't understand it there are parallels.

Glad everything's cleared up for you, OP. I've learned a lot too.

If your Dh paid the real amount it costs to bring up a child

This is the point: the CSA amounts are about how much the NRP is deemed able to contribute, not calculated on how much it actually costs to bring up a child.

I get sick of parents (usually fathers) ducking out of their responsibilities -- my taxes supplement your DH's lifestyle basically.

(as a young widow, I used to thank my OH's careful planning that when he died suddenly we had life insurance, because a child is v expensive as a single parent).

So, my view is that you are being V unreasonable

Oh op. You are not that naive surely. Many nrp just don't pay. And if she is working 24 hours a week, her rent costs will not be totally covered, or her council tax.

I'm a lone parent to four dc. Ex does not pay maintenance. He just changes things so he doesn't have to. I work part time. And I get benefits. And by God I'm grateful for them.

Of course if I could have predicted the future I wouldn't have married and had four children with a man that would eventually become violent. But there you go.

Stop worrying about her finances and be thankful you aren't in her situation. The slightest change to her circumstances means benefits go up in the air and can take weeks to sort out. It's no fun. Trust me.

yanbu
CB and CA is taken in to consideration, so never understood why Maintenance isn't.
but saying that I do think all NRP should be forced to pay maintenance.

I think if you get £4k a month in maintenance then you would be a Knob to claim benefits on top. I would hope people don't do that. But yes, they would be entitled.

I don't know anyone who gets more than a couple £100 a month from their exes in maintenance, I guess I don't move in wealthy circles.

I totally agree maintenance should be included in any calculation.

I know many people divorced from wealthy men that receive large payments and don't need benefits but are still entitled to and claim them.

The idea that the state should pay because the NRP might not bother is absurd. Collect the payments through the tax system and pay it through the tax credits.

I strongly feel we cannot pay benefits to those that are not in need.

I'd rather see failure to pay for your children become something this country took really seriously and see some actual consequences for people who choose to try to dodge out of paying a penny.

Me too, very much so. But that goes for RPs as well as NRPs in my book.

All adults have to provide themselves with somewhere to live, and in cases where both parents are providing a suitable home for children, even if children are only staying in their second home at weekends, then that should not be included in maintenance calculations. NRPs don't have a responsibility for RPs, only for their children.

Samcro what is CB and CA? If you mean hold benefit, no it isn't, and CA? What is that?

child benefit

carers allowance = CA

I understand why child maintenance isn't counted in benefits calculations (because not all NRPs can be relied upon to pay regularly), however, I do think it should be taken into account somehow as benefits are there Asa safety net and to provide people with a minimum income and minimum standard of living.
Maybe it would have been better if the resident parent go their benefits and the NRP paid his maintenance to the benefits agency to receive the burden on the state and a portion of that (maybe £30 per week) could be paid to the resident parent on top of their benefits. Using that method would mean that child maintenance was taken into account when calculating benefits but the resident parent doesn't get left without if the NRP fails to pay.

You think carers allowance should be treated as income for hosing benefit and tax credits? Nice. You do know what carers allowance is for don't you?

I kind of see where you are coming from but as well as the issue of NRP not paying what they should, she works, pays tax and is entitled to any benefits that she is entitled to on the basis that she has paid into the system. It's not about her ex-partner's contribution.

My mum periodically moans about a friend of hers whose first husband died and she receives a widow's pension. She has remarried and still receives it. My mum thinks that's unfair. I don't. Because (a) her deceased husband paid into the system and (b) she shouldn't have to be reliant on her new man.

EhricLovesTheBhrothers was that to me?
I am a carer. I was pointing out that it is counted as income and so is cb
so why shouldn't maintenance?
(and CA is taxable)

She didn't say it should be, she said it is. Which is true. It is.

This is an easy one to fix. The State taxpayer should provide for all children of single parents. The State should then recover, via tax, the amount (or a proportion of it) that the State has spent.

In essence, this removes the uncertainty associated with maintenace payments, but means that (typicaly women) aren't 'further enriched' when they do receive maintenance.

My own sister has two children by two different men. Both pay maintenance and she receives benefits. She is not short of a few quid. The maintenace, by her own admission though she does budget very carefully is 'all gravy'

I wish my ds cost £10 a day!! His travel to school and back, lunches and after school activities (essential as I work full time) are more than that!!

YABU. I cannot work due to my youngest sons medical problems, my ExH doesn't help with any of his care. He on the other hand earns quite at lot (close to £50k) and is not entitled to benefits, however he does still have to pay for his children. My earnings potential, potential to build a pension etc continue to be affected by my caring responsibilities whilst he goes unaffected, but I guess many people think I should be kicked while I'm down eh?

£70 a week per child is a ridiculous amount to quote btw - I get half of that for 4 children and expect that to reduce shortly an my ExH has moved in with his new Gf who has two children that he intends to "take responsibility for" and thus reduce his maintenance for his own children. He won't actually be paying for her children of course, it's just a way of him paying less. His four DSs won't cost any less to raise of course.