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 is not enough to raise my child. It costs me £50 a week for after school club alone, just so I can go to work.

Carers allowance IS treated as income for housing benefit and tax creit purposes. It always has been treated as income because it is a taxable benefit.

You think carers allowance should be treated as income for hosing benefit and tax credits?

I think it should be. But I also think it should be paid at an hourly rate like a wage, not an allowance.

Ok, sorry Sam I misunderstood you.
Neither carers allowance nor child benefit should be counted as income. CB isn't, CA shouldn't be. I didn't know it was.

Yabu because not every NRP pays, or pays consistently, as others have mentioned.

Ya also bu because its not about the rp being able to eke out an existence, just enough to scrape by, its about giving the child the best possible life they can have, financially speaking, and about the NRP taking responsibility for their offspring. Perhaps your dp wouldnt but how many men waltz merrily away from their old family when they meet someone new? Quite a few.

I don't think £10 a day per child is that outrageously low as a) this is all part of a collective family budget, so for two children, so 500 a month to contribute to feed them, clothe them, food, heating etc.

Secondly, it is only half the money needed presumably- as the mother would be getting the other half of the money (via work/benefits). So- approx £1000 for two children.

If I didn't have children, it would indeed halve my costs or more, as I would rent a small one bed flat, not a 3 bed house, and spend much much less on food, heating, clothes, their travel and so on. If I took £1000 a month what I earn now for my family, it's about what I used to earn as a single person and manage ok.

The sad thing is thought that most RP don't even get that.

I vaguely remember the supposed maintenance paid being deducted from income support. That's a bit odd, surely, as that's what the government said you the adult was deemed to need to live on irrespective of any children.

I'm pretty sure I.S was taxed at source as well.

I think the idea, that someone suggested earlier, of the NRP paying directly to the government is a good one.

Then if the main reason for CM not being taken into account re benefits, was the fact that there is a risk NRP might not pay, it wouldn't impact on the RP as it wouldn't be their job to chase it up. The government would pay them, whether or no and then chase the money up.

I can't think of a reason why this wouldn't be a good thing.

It would be fair, no-one would need to worry if the CM was coming or not and deadbeat NRP's would be chased and hopefully punished if they tried to evade payment

My exp readily fails to pay maintenance. So i got in touch with CSA and he was paying regularly. And then the bright sparks decided to charge the both of us for using them so he refused and now we're back to me keeping everything crossed that he pays, ringing and texting when he doesnt, having to pretend he's my favourite person, biting my tongue when he decides hes not having Dcs on his weekends (meaning i suddenly cant work and lose clients -income down even further) all because he has the absoloute control once again and he knows i just have to put up with it if i expect any money from him.

Reasons given in the past for failure to pay include, he bought a house so needed the money himself, he had to buy an engagement ring, he bought a new car, he was going away for the weekend, he didnt do any overtime at work

I've never recieved any maintenance from the ex. I doubt I ever will.

I don't think maintenance should be counted as the system stands. I don't begrudge those that recieve maintenace in addition to benefits, it doesn't affect my finances.

The real issue that needs to be sorted out is why fathers are able to not pay for their children. Nothing happens to those that don't, they are allowed to completely get away with it. I think they should be sent to jail. If we sorted this out there wouldn't be a problem. Does anyone know why this is never addressed? And don't get me started on why single mums now have to pay the CSA to do nothing.

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.

You do know that the vast majority of NRPs are not wealthy men dont you?!

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

This already happens. The CSA (or CMS I think it is now), can take from wages at source, deadbeats can be taken to court and sent to prison but this rarely happens as it costs more than would ever be recovered and doesnt actually help the RP with no money. Unfortunately, the CSA have to follow certain rules and non paying NRP dont, they can and do dodge and weave in order to avoid their responsibilities. And sadly, as the OP has proved, there are often partners in the background complaining about the ex and the money she is entitled to which further justifies the attitude in many NRP about CM being optional and something to be avoided if at all possible.

The fact is that if a NRP is determined not to pay then there are ways that they can do this. My ex was always in work but he would move at least once a year so they had to do searches to find him which took time. Then they had to allow him time to respond to their contact by which time he would be ready to move again and when he changed jobs........ I would be lucky if I got one payment before he fucked off again. Or he could have become self employed and paid himself a pittance so that on paper he appeared to not be able to afford to pay CM (a common trick mentioned on this thread at least once). Or he could simply give up work, again something that happens quite often.

There really are men out there who would rather live on a vastly reduced income themselves rather than pay for their children. Sad but true. Saying "oh the government should do X Y or Z" doesnt solve the issue of some men being so utterly useless as fathers that they will put themselves into poverty rather than "pay HER a penny". This is not a UK issue, its an issue the world over, but at least over here we have a safety net for the victims of this selfishness. I would rather my taxes paid to support women and children who need it than the alternative.

Does anyone know why this is never addressed?

Because it would cost a lot of money and isnt a policy that will win any votes. No-one is really interested in making things fairer for single parents or their children because "theyre rolling in the benefits anyway"

I don't think it is relevant that many NRP are not wealthy. The point is devising a system where we don't give benefits to people that don't need them.

Pensioners, with hundreds of thousands in the bank should not get winter fuel allowance. I know some that do, not many but still wrong.

It doesn't happen though, at least not in a way that works. And the CSA has nothing to do with benefits, which it should IMO. The agency that pays the benefits should be getting the maintence money from the NRP to fund the benefits.

The RP doesn't need money from both sources, they just need enough so they can provide for their children, which benefits enables. So make the NRP contribute towards the benefits. If they don't pay, then it makes no real difference to the RP. And the RPs that are being paid maintenance aren't getting more taxpayer money than they actually need.

Then if the NRP doesn't pay for them, the agency can go after them in the same way it would for unpaid tax.

I am definitely happy to pay taxes to support NRP and children who need it, and anyone else with a genuine need. I am not happy that NRP can say I won't bother paying.

Also, the way the CSA is at the moment, it allows NRPs to not pay if they can't afford it. If I were boss of this system, it wouldn't matter whether or not they could afford it, they would be charged anyway because they chose to have children. If they didn't pay, they would build up arrears, that they would owe until they paid it or until they died. It would be the first thing to be paid back out of any estate they leave, and they would have to pay it out of their pension if they don't pay for years. They would not stop owing the money just because their children are adults, they would remain in debt to the government.

Obviously there would still be some feckless idiots that would not pay for their children, but they would have to work bloody hard to avoid paying for the rest of their lives.

In a perfect world it should be counted, but practically it's a nightmare and would put make lots of children vulnerable.

The off shoot of that is that some people are quitting a very very good deal out of it.

getting*

Agree woowoo

YABU. You married a man who fathered a child (and who had very poor judgement). He has to pay for it and the resident parent's finances are none of your business.

The cost of raising a child to the age of 21 has soared to £222,458
really?
222,458 over 21 years, makes ~£10,593 per year.
that's roughly the same as a minimum wage job.

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.

Oh, I see, that article is from the Guardian and talks about boarding schools -how is that even remotely relevant to most people's lives?
£222458 for 21 years
£10593 per year
£203 per week
£29 per day
£15 per day should come from each parent?

I'm fairly convinced that's an over estimate,
Does anyone have anything like a true idea of the costs of having a child to their life? (I doubt in the OP's DH's ex's situation that the guardian costs are representative including (as they do) averaged out costs of boarding schools and foreign holidays)

Basically, as much as everyone wants to berate the OP saying that £75 a week (~£11 a day) is not enough, probably in the circumstances it is half.

Quite frankly I don't think it's any of your business to calculate what she's entitled to and what she's not entitled to. It's making you come across as extremely bitter.

Seriously, why would you take the time to actually do that? Her benefits are her responsibility.

Yes. Great. Obviously increasing our already embarrassing (for a G8 country) levels of child poverty is clearly what we should be aiming for as a civilised society.

I can't stand posts like this. The idea that if dh and I should ever split up and I'd be a loan parent wouldn't be pleasant but I know I could manage. But the thought that some bloody random woman could come along and set up home with dh, then start deciding she knew all about my income and outgoings, what other people paid me and thought she should keep a check on me and remind me of things just makes my skin crawl.

Op you need to spend less time focusing on someone's life that is absolutely none of your business.

Cake, you said it so much better than me!!