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?

Oh piss off. You could be a single mother one day! yes you, I never thought I be a single mum but here I am. How dare you have the right to judge what that woman is entitled too? If I heard my ex new girlfriend was looking up online my benefits and judging me, I be tempted to kick her in the face! (joke!) I give her an earful.

yes YABU any month at all that money can stop.
You sound a bit spiteful to be honest

Agree with Notaunique. It's called child support, not RP support. The money is for the children. Why would anyone want to decrease RP's benefits? You don't know that the ex isn't putting money away for the kids either. Some people are so quick to make assumptions.

If the system is designed for the benefit of the children involved that should mean all of the children involved. When NRPs and their families (including partners) have their incomes calculated for the purposes of benefits and tax credits the maintenance payments are not looked out which means the household income of nrp is lower than it would otherwise be any any children in that household will be punished where the resident parents children will benefit. This is the business of the partners of nrp as it affects their income and their children in a way that it does not affect the partners of resident parents. Any children in the household of nrp are being penalised. I can not afford to work as my DH's maintance payments are not looked at for tax credit calculations so we get no help with childcare. It is not fair to penalise NRPs and their families who pay maintance because a large group of NRPs do not pay maintance. The csa need to start looking at the reality of parents situations. In my case me and my children would be financially better off if I left their father and became a single parent. There is no way that this should be the case. Why should my children be penalised because their father has a dc as the result of a one night stand before we met? Is he not entitled to have a family? Parents should support their children but the support for one child should not make it so difficult for them to support the others. The csa screw so many families over but it is naive to believe that it is only single parents who are affected.

WTF?

Seriously? She has 3 DC, she works 20+ hours a week at a time that she is actually able to have childcare and you're still not happy with her?

Who gave you the right to decide what she should or should not have? At 20+ hours a week she is at the very most, getting help toward her housing, which still would only be a small amount anyone and certainly would not cover the whole cost. She won't be getting anything other than the 25% single discount for Council tax.

As for tax credits? These are NOT benefits! Otherwise the vast majority of the low paid working population in the UK would be 'on benefits'. I get tax credits (and a small amount of housing benefit if you must know) for my two and I work full time!

If she worked full time she'd need to pay for childcare, which she'd only receive 70% for at work, but not even that if she earns a taxable income. She'd still need to put up the other 30%+. In my suburban area that 30% is at LEAST 54 a week in before/after school clubs. If they are not at school then that's 166 a week.

So what part of her 'benefits' (which is ONLY housing benefit) would you like them to dock in order to accomodate the comparably small contribution your OH makes?

Your OH's maintenance should not be considered her income at all and I agree with the changes that have been made to this in recent years. You would still pay this if she earned a million pound a year.

It sounds like you just want her to struggle, when actually, you should be pleased that your OH contributes to making his child's life 'even better' that the government decided breadline (which is what she gets).

My ex doesn't work atm and so I get 5 a week from his JSA, I am more than happy with this even though our two children cost MUCH more than this. It's swings and roundabouts.

" their father has a dc as the result of a one night stand before we met"

tbh he should have kept his pants buttoned or used a condom then. and as he didn't then him taking responsibility is right and just.

To be honest whilst you have a point £78 per week is a very very low amount to be worried about . When you think that the 'running costs' are prob nearer to £400 a week !

And it does seen odd that this income is not counted I know someone wake who has same issue and they pay the ex a hell of alpt more that'll your DH does

if the NRP can't afford more children, then NRP should not have more with new partners! CSA DO take into account children living in the NRP's household and reduce maintenance accordingly (my ex has two children in his household). If beyond this, they still can't afford any more children, well i'm afraid like RP's you have to cut your cloth accordingly

Do you really think an NRP earning, say, £150k shouldn't be paying more than one paying the bare minimum on a salary of £15k WooWoo?

Their children should see the benefit of a high earning parent, but I don't think that automatically means they should pay more to the RP. They could do more of the clothes shopping, or pay directly for activities or pay for any number of things, but the amount of child related benefits a RP receives doesn't have to differ.

I'm still relating this to issue of RPs getting money twice btw, and I'm not here trying to create an entirely new govern,nt policy on mn in the space of one Friday afternoon, I'm just discussing ideals and principles that I think would make more sense. Because it really doesn't make sense for the taxpayer to pay for children when their parents can afford to do it themselves.

Not that it is relevant Sunny but he did. I don't disagree with him paying something but I do disagree with him paying so much it financially cripples us when it is not necessary.

well I am sorry but perhaps you should not have chosen to have two children with a man who already has financial obligation then.

and why is it 'not necessary' for him to contribute to his first child? Imagine if someone said that about your kids one day?

PartPixie But presumably you knew how much DP had to pay for his first born before you both decided to have another, and then yet another?

sweetpea- she may not even be entitled to housing benefit! When I was a single mum working 30 hours a week and taking home £1,600pcm I wasn't entitled to a penny of HB for my £674pcm rent (which I don't begrudge btw as I could afford it!) Apparently the ex in this case takes home £2,200 a month! you're spot on about the OP.

if the NRP can't afford more children, then NRP should not have more with new partners!

This

Their children should see the benefit of a high earning parent, but I don't think that automatically means they should pay more to the RP. They could do more of the clothes shopping, or pay directly for activities or pay for any number of things,

my high earning ex has not spent a single penny on the dc over and above any maintenance he had to pay, it's all fair and well saying they can do the clothes shopping etc but too many will just turn round and say that is what the maintenance is for.

Contribute yes but the amount is not necessary. So he is never allowed to have a family then?

how do you know that the 'amount is not necessary' then Pixie? He can well afford it if it has been fixed by the CSA. And quite honestly no, he should not have started another family if he could not afford it.

His first dcs mother has had another child so that is ok but not him? My major issue is not him paying it is the fact that tax credits etc do not take this into account.

I'd like CM to be extracted from the wage packet of the resent parent at source, or their benefit payment if they weren't working.

That would remove the problem of non-compliance with court ordered maintenance.

I think it should be a criminal offence not to pay maintenance.

And if this was the case then YANBU - benefits should take other reliable income into consideration.

'Non-resident'

of course tax credits do not take it into account. That is because the money can stop at any time on the whim of the NRP and in our case, his wife. That sounds like the case for you too, I bet you are always on at him to stop sending it.
YOU married a sexual incontinent and had two kids by him, and now you think that his first kid should be raised in poverty.
Just lovely.

Can'tbebothered, children will always be affected by the choices their parents make for them, even if they make ungenerous ones. In my mythical world, as long as the child's needs were met by their parents instead of by taxpayers, and children weren't missing out on essentials, then that would just be a consequence of an arsehole having a child unfortunately. There's nothing that can be done to change that.

Pixie, your DH is allowed to have as many children as he can afford. As are you. You're right that it's wrong that you'd be better off as a single parent, just as it's wrong that single parents are often better off claiming benefits than working. But that goes back to why parents should pay for their children rather than benefits.

Yes, if she can afford it, why can't she have more children?

Apparently you can't afford it, so sorry but that's the way it is.

If CSA know you have children in your household, then you don't NEED tax credits to take into account your outgoings for maintenance. Your OH still earned what he earned, you don't see tax credits asking how much your rent is or what your sky bill is!

'He can well afford it if has been set by the csa.'

Th csa use a fixed formula to calculate the amount. They do no look at outgoings. I am not talking about excessive outgoings I am talking about the rent on a two bed house and to put food on the table. We live in an expensive area, so his salary is higher but we don't see any benefit of that salary because we have higher rent costs but because of the higher salary his csa is higher. We live in this area so he can do this job and advance his career which will benefit all of his children.