Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that maintenance SHOULD affect benefit entitlement?

363 replies

IJustCantBelieveIt · 15/01/2015 23:12

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?

OP posts:
SunnyBaudelaire · 16/01/2015 14:56

my heart is bleeding for you pixie

basgetti · 16/01/2015 14:58

Pixie, the CSA already make deductions for the children you have living with you. How much less do you think he should pay then?

formerbabe · 16/01/2015 14:59

Well if you think single parenthood is such a walk in the park pixie...give it a go. Does his child from the ons get to enjoy living in an expensive area like him and your DC?

WooWooOwl · 16/01/2015 14:59

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.

If the first dcs mother had another child when she has to rely on certain benefits then no, it's not really ok.

Personally I think child tax credits are the work of the devil, but why should you get more in benefits because you chose to have children you can't afford?

This is the whole point of why we need benefits reforms.

Benefits that help people in times of need are great and I'm thankful we have them. Benefits that encourage people to have three children when they can't afford to pay for three children are not.

Sweetpea01 · 16/01/2015 15:01

Why should the CSA care what outgoings you have?

They look at your OH's income only (not even yours if you have any and not even your Tax Credits - otherwise you'd be paying MUCH more than you do)

PartPixie · 16/01/2015 15:01

His maintenance is the first thing out of his paycheck every month and he has never not paid it. I have never asked him not to. His first child is not being raised in poverty, far from it. I would not mind us suffering if she did need it. Just because that is your situation it does not mean it is everyone's. If he is a sexual incontinent then clearly so is the child's mother.

basgetti · 16/01/2015 15:05

His first dcs mother has had another child so that is ok but not him?

Yes because presumably you are not being expected to fund her new child. On the other hand, you expect her to take a financial hit for additional children you have chosen to have, even though the CSA already makes deductions to take them into account.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 16/01/2015 15:05

I don't think high earning NRPs should have to pay more than low earning NRPs, because children don't cost vastly different amounts to raise unless parents choose to spend extra on things that aren't essential

Mine do. I have carer costs for several of my children that run into the hundreds each day. I have 1 child whose food costs are in the £30 per day region if I did not provide these things my children would be in hospitals or 1:1 residential units.

Having your children live at a significantly different level to the one your income should provide is abuse.

WooWooOwl · 16/01/2015 15:06

Maybe she is pixie. It's only right that his maintenance is the first thing out of his paycheque every month. Hopefully your DH is paying an amount that is reflective of half of the costs of raising a child, and that part of the system is vaguely working.

Sweetpea01 · 16/01/2015 15:06

So the child's mother should be entirely responsible for THEIR child's expenses because she 'can afford it' ? By that reckoning, if she was on benefits (And therefore in poverty) your OH should then pay ALL of his child's costs? Not just his small contribution.

I don't know what my ex would do if I suddenly rocked up to his house with an invoice for 50% of everything our children cost me.

Pantone363 · 16/01/2015 15:08

Surely both you and your DP wish to ensure that as much money as possible is made available for his DC?

I can't think of one possible reason why you wouldn't...........

Oh and YABU. And fucking weird to do a hypothetical benefit check on her.

WooWooOwl · 16/01/2015 15:09

Sock, by that logic, it would be abuse if I could afford to send my children to private school, buy them a pony each and take them on exotic holidays every couple of months but chose not to.

I think meeting the needs of a child who require more because of illness or disability is exactly where the state benefit system should be stepping in, regardless of parental income.

PartPixie · 16/01/2015 15:11

I don't expect her to take a financial hit. He used to pay a lower, but still very reasonable amount of maintenance. He moved jobs, csa increased a lot and now we are struggling because our outgoings went up. This isn't a situation created by us having moe children. All I want is a situation where none of the children are left suffering. I really don't think that is unreasonable. I would happily give more if she needed it and we could afford it.

SunnyBaudelaire · 16/01/2015 15:13

OK so which children are 'suffering' and how exactly? If your children are going hungry then I am sure you could claim tax credits or something.

Nanny0gg · 16/01/2015 15:14

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.

PartPixie · 16/01/2015 15:16

Yes he is woo woo, I would suggest perhaps more than half but in doing so it now leaves a deficit for our children. I don't think the maintenance should be stopped but I do think it should be fairer.

Sweetpea01 · 16/01/2015 15:17

Can I just say,

I have an OH who will shortly be moving in. As such any tax credits or small housing benefit I currently on my full time hours receive will go to 0 as he is a higher earner than me.

I will also be going on part time hours. So he will not only be paying for me, but also my two children by another man. (this is by the by as he is happy to do this)

But the point is, all benefit systems seem to 'expect' (and rightly so!) that this non-father will pay toward my children's raising.

Yet CSA don't ever look at an NRP's partner's income for the same purpose. She (most cases is a she) doesn't have to contribute a penny of her own earnings towards HER OH's children as my own has to do.

And to the original OP, unless you are working and don't claim tax credits.. then you are criticising her for claiming as many 'benefits' as you!! You also get the benefit of your OH's income, is her child not also entitled to a small slice of that? Really?

bf1000 · 16/01/2015 15:19

And what would you do to RP who control and use their power over contact and the NRP who are forced to make nice with controlling arseholes who use their children to score points and make the NRP families life miserable?

PartPixie · 16/01/2015 15:19

No we can't sunny and this is my complaint. Our income is such that we should be able to claim something, not much but something, but we can't because our income before the maintenance is taken of is above the thresholds.

SunnyBaudelaire · 16/01/2015 15:21

"sighs"
well in that case Pixie you have quite enough to feed and clothe and entertain your DCs don't you? OK maybe no expensive school ski trips or whatever, but hey that is normal for most of us.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 16/01/2015 15:22

WooWoo its not the same thing. not funding a perceived advantage for your child is not quite the same as expecting your child to have a benefit level existence whilst you have a HRT lifestyle as do any other children who live in your household.

And it is very much something that if a resident parent did would be addressed as a child protection concern sadly its something I've not been unfamiliar with professionally over the years.

notauniquename · 16/01/2015 15:23

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.

Firstly, as the CSA calculated maintenance onyl takes into account the money coming in (and not the cost of rent, bills, transport, food, debt repayments etc) no, it's not as simple as saying that he can afford it, he may not be able to.

Secondly that's quite judgemental,
perhaps he could afford to support 2 kids, but has had a change in circumstance. (maybe rent has increased etc)

LaLyra · 16/01/2015 15:23

I always find it downright bizarre when people shout about the NRP's "right" to a new family.

If a person can afford 2 children then that's the most children they should have. They shouldn't suddenly feel like they have a "right" to more children because they've got a new relationship.

It wouldn't be acceptable to stop funding your first two children to have a third if you lived in the same house as them and the fact an NRP lives elsewhere doesn't change that.

bf1000 · 16/01/2015 15:24

Sweetpea - you have no idea if you really believe the NRP partner doesnt contribute to the step children costs.

Maybe in some families but in families I know the RP families are far better off than the NRP families I know. THe NRP incur all the same costs for their NRC as the RP - they need to house/feed and clothe these children too

What costs do you think the RP has that a NRP doesnt have?

Sweetpea01 · 16/01/2015 15:24

No maintenance should NOT be considered when you are applying for help/benefits. It's an outgoing! If you can't afford the bare minimum that CSA says you should be paying then you are not budgeting your household properly.