To think the current benefits system sets single parents up to commit fraud?

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I am a single parent, I'm currently a student and earn a small amount from self employment, so receive some housing benefit, CTC, WTC and CB.

Let's say, hypothetically, my bf moved in with me (there is no real danger of that happening for a very long time, but let's pretend). He earns £50k a year. If he moved in, as far as the system would see it, my children are his children, and therefore he would be jointly financially responsible for them. I would instantly lose all of my benefits, leaving me around £1100 a month worse off. This would leave me in a position of being no longer financially independent, and feeling like I had to go to him, cap in hand, to ask for money. Money, which often would be spent buying things for my kids.

My bf is a very nice chap and all that, but I doubt he'd cough up a grand a month to provide for me and my children. I doubt there's many blokes that would. His dd would also lose out, as through suddenly having gained two extra children, the maintenance she is entitled to would go right down.

Bearing all this in mind, I can see why many single parents are tempted to move their partner in 'on the sly'. Of course this is very risky, but only for the single parent (usually the female). As the benefits claimant it is the single parent who will be prosecuted, the partner they'd moved in would have no repercussions, even though no doubt they'd done quite well in terms of their own living costs, probably chipping in a token amount towards food and bills.

I think this makes it very hard for single parents to ever have a serous relationship, unless they happened to be a high earner themselves, so benefits weren't an issue. Or I suppose if both adults were on benefits, as they wouldn't lose out there. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than a citizens wage (which will never happen).

Why would you consider moving a man in to a family home if he isn't willing to financially support that family?

If he doesn't want to do that, he isn't ready to commit to being part of my family and he won't be living under my roof.

The system isn't ideal. But if anyone feels that committing fraud is a better option then maybe consider whether the relationship is worth it.

user1463231665 - no offence, but your plan seems set up to only work for a relatively small percentage of the population who can walk straight from their first degree into a well paid job, and assumes you have the luck to meet a decent man who also wants to have kids young at university.

I'm not sure it works as a template for life. Not saying I don't wish I'd had kids early but I am 100% sure that had I had babies while living in a rented room in a shared house while OH worked at minimum wage and we lived on that and a PhD stipend I would have needed benefits. And if my relationship had broken down I'd have been stuffed financially.

We're good now, but it definitely took time as I think is normal for many people. You give advice based on everyone being exactly like you, with your opportunities, and choices. That isn't realistic.

Exactly, tabsicle. And most people don't end up in a well-paid job even after years of working - 95% of workers earn less than £60k. So what Xenia advocates will work for 5%. Now, what is better - to advise people to become part of the 5% when 95% of them never will, or to have a system whereby everyone who works can support themselves and their family?

Wow user could you be any more patronising? Did you miss the bits where most of the single mums on this thread have mentioned their education/career/long term relationship?

If you live together you're a family, you provide for your family. Bf will surely know that he's moving into a house with children, he'll take on the role of step dad, he'll pay towards bills/rent/food etc if you're a single parent and bf moves in and you want financial independence get a job lol

For all those demanding statistics (and in the hope that those holier than thou understand that the idea that single parents are irresponsible teenagers) here are the numbers:
Statistics

Single parents today

Did you know, in the UK:

There are around two million single parents – they make up a quarter of families with dependent children (i)
Less than two per cent of single parents are teenagers (ii)
64.4 per cent of single parents are in work (iii)
The majority of single parents don’t receive child maintenance payments (iv)
41 per cent of children in single parent families live in relative poverty, around twice the risk of relative poverty faced by children in couple families (24 per cent). (v)
Then and now
The proportion of families with children headed by single parents has remained at around 25 per cent for over a decade (vi)
The proportion of single parents who were fathers has stayed at 9 per cent for over ten years (vii)
The proportion of single parents in work increased from 55.8 per cent to 64.4 per cent over the past decade (viii)
Single parents’ risk of poverty has fallen over the past decade, yet those in single parent families are still nearly twice as likely to be in poverty as those in couple parent families. (ix)

Find out more
Who are single parents?

Around 90 per cent of single parents are women; the proportion who are men has remained at around 10 per cent for over a decade (i)
Less than two per cent of single parents are teenagers (aged 16-19 years) (ii)
The average age of a single parent is around 38 years; single mothers tend to be younger than single fathers on average (37 years compared with 44 years old, respectively) (iii)
Around half – 49 per cent – of single parents had their children within marriage; that is, they are married/in a civil partnership, separated, divorced or a surviving partner (iv)
Single fathers are around twice as likely to be widowed than single mothers (v)
21 per cent of single parents are from a Black or minority ethnic background (including those of other White origin, apart from White British), compared with 16 per cent nationally (vi)
27 per cent of single parents have a disability, compared with 21 per cent of couple parents (vii)
References

i. ONS (2015) Families and households, 2015. Table 1.
ii. Gingerbread analysis of Labour Force Survey (April-June 2014). Aged 16-19 years.
iii. See footnote ii.
iv. See footnote iii.
v. See footnote iii and ONS (2013) Census 2011, Table DC 1115EW.
vi. ONS (2013) Census 2011, Table DC1201EW.
vii. Gingerbread analysis of Understanding Society Wave 4 (data largely from 2012-2013).

Single parent families

Work and looking for work

Living standards and poverty

The impact of single parenthood

References for Single Parents Today and Then and Now

i. ONS (2015) Families and households, 2015. Table 1.
ii. Gingerbread analysis of Labour Force Survey (April-June 2012). Aged 16-19 years.
iii. ONS (2015) Working and workless households, 2015. Table P.
iv. Gingerbread analysis of Understanding Society Wave 3 data.
v. DWP (2015) Households below average income, 1994/95-2013/14. Table 4.14ts
vi. See reference i.
vii. See reference i.
viii. See reference iii.
ix. See reference v.

Then marry ideally someone you met at or or shortly after university as you meet so many potential spouses there and it gets harder to meet people once work becomes busier. Then have your babies but don't take much time off and always work full time so the family has two incomes to protect it against things going wrong.

How joyless and clinical this all sounds!

I'll take my occasionally messy, often unexpected but very happy and spontaneous life and relationships thanks

I find that smugness of some women, who feel they did everything right because they are still married to the father of their children, a bit shallow:

One of the most fascinating things of getting a divorce is that as soon as you are open about your relationship break up, people start telling you about their own relationship's problems and you soon realise that the only difference between them and you, is that you had the guts to walk away from a bad marriage.

Funding a flat rate payment to children through increased taxes on those over 40 who work and don't have children? I think not. Why should the child free subsidise the lifestyle choice of those who CHOOSE to have children? We already subsidise this CHOICE through our tax payments going towards child tax credits, child benefit, free school meals etc. And before anyone starts in on how the children are going to be funding our pensions in future, most people over 40 who have chosen not to have children and are in a position to be taxed even further are usually those whose incomes have allowed them to stockpile more security for the future than relying on basic pensions

Funding a flat rate payment to children through increased taxes on those over 40 who work and don't have children?

Who suggested that? What did I miss?

Louisagradgrid suggested it a few pages back. A more asinine idea i have never heard. Yeah sure, let's screw over further those members of society who take the least amd contribute the most. Let's tax them even further and work them even harder while those who CHOOSE to have children get their paid maternity/paternity leave, flexi working hours and other benefits. It's as if some people with children are so resentful of the fact that their chioce to breed has left them with negative financial consequences that they wish to see those whom they perceive to have more disposable income and less worthy responsibilities brought down to the same level of pecuniary.

I missed it. You don't sound keen

" should the child free subsidise the lifestyle choice of those who CHOOSE to have children"

Because the continued birth and raising of children is essential for the economy to continue to function.

Unless you think we should simply import all new adult workers from abroad?

Women who are carrying and raising children are doing essential work, mostly for free.

Fair enough and so the childfree/childless already fo their part by subsidising through their taxes the myriad of benefits parents get. Any further imposition of tax specifically on the unchilded smacks suspicously of punishing people for choosing not to or being unable to have children. And let's not forget the unquantifiable contributions and sacrifices the unchilded have to make on a daily basis, taking less desirable shift hours, last dibs on annual leave during holiday times, staying late when patents leave to pick kids up/attend kid related event etc.
People choose to have children to satisfy some personal fulfilment, fine but let's not kid ourselves that it is some noble act of unpaid sacrifice for the greater good of society. If it was then parents should expect no benefits at all since their satisfaction and pride from their contribution to society should be fulfilment enough.

I must say free universal childcare would be a fabulous idea.

"And let's not forget the unquantifiable contributions and sacrifices the unchilded have to make on a daily basis, taking less desirable shift hours, last dibs on annual leave during holiday times, staying late when patents leave to pick kids up/attend kid related event etc."

The last dibs on annual leave has been imposed on me, although any well-organised employer will have a policy of first request in, first to get the leave. As for the other two, I've never done them and don't see why I ever should!

Because the continued birth and raising of children is essential for the economy to continue to function.

Unless you think we should simply import all new adult workers from abroad?

Women who are carrying and raising children are doing essential work, mostly for free.

Hell no Minifingerz. As important as it might be to care for our ageing population, it is disastrously shortsighted to use this to promote childbearing. As I'm sure you know, the planet's population will reach 10 billion before we have even a chance of seeing a decline.

Obviously, humans are hard-wired to procreate, we hardly need to exalt these hard-working unpaid women who are you know, raising their children (like parents are supposed to). If their work is unrecognised, that's a problem within their family unit.

Back to the subject of the thread:

Wouldn't a rule which allowed people to cohabit without having any statutory responsibility towards shared dependent children in reality massively penalize married couples?

They would be the only families in which the father would be required to pay for their children.

If that's the case, then do it - but give a huge tax break for married couples. Like they would pay much less tax in response to the reality that they would be the only people paying for their kids.

"give a huge tax break for married couples (...) they would be the only people paying for their kids."

Not all married people have kids. Why should childless married people pay less tax than childless single people, the latter group not getting any help from the state or any saving from joining resources.

I think what's needed is a massive overhaul of the relationship between state and family to reflect the reality that is modern Britain.

1. I'd remove the requirement that only married mothers can name the father on the birth certificate in his absence. Apart from genuine cases where the father is not known, I think all children should have both parents named on the birth certificate. However, there are some other important changes that would have to take place in conjunction with this to protect vulnerable children and mothers (see below).

1. When registering children, both parents should be required to hand over their national insurance number. In cases where the mother attends on her own and the father's NI is not known, the state can find this out. It is relatively easy to find out this sort of information at the time, but becomes much more difficult later on when people move, etc.

1. As soon as parents separate, maintenance should be deducted like a tax and paid to the mother. There should be no situation, as there is currently, where the address of the mother is made available to the father (or vice versa if dad has residency).

1. In cases where parents work and have to pay for childcare, the cost should be split between parents. A single mother with a 9-5 job who has the children during the week while the father has them EOW and Wednesday night, should pay only 50% of those childcare costs while the father should pay the rest. If he has a Monday to Friday job too, he is benefitting from having no childcare issues whatsoever in this situation yet doesn't have to pay a penny. This could be administered in different ways - either by the setting invoicing mum/dad separately (in amicable cases) or again through the tax system (e.g. childcare element of tax credits).

1. Fines should be accrued (deducted again like tax debts) for non-payment. After a certain level, this should result in a criminal record. Not supporting your offspring is way more serious an offence than stealing a sandwich IMO.

1. Parental responsibility should be adjusted for parents who deliberately try to avoid paying maintenance. Any parent who deliberately tries to avoid paying for their child is not a parent who has their child's best interests at heart. And I have no truck with the 'why should I pay for a child I don't see' argument - er because you are 50% responsible for that child being here perhaps and because if you genuinely care for that child that you don't see how do you possibly think adding financial hardship into the equation is going to help that child? Obviously genuine financial hardship should not result in this.

1. In cases where abuse of the mother/child takes place, parental responsibility should also be adjusted. Time and time again the links between partner abuse and child abuse have been demonstrated. This is accepted pretty much in all state-run organisations apart from the family court where often parents are ordered to facilitate contact between an abusive partner and the child to their own detriment and that of the child's. Make access to children dependent on the successful completion of a perpetrator's programme (that they pay for), for example and make contact supervised in all cases where abuse has taken place until a panel of experts and the other parent have reached agreement that non-supervised is safe. It is surprising how many abusive types will fade into the background when contact comes at a price. What we want to avoid is penalising women who are too scared to name the father on the birth certificate because of the enforced link that will give that person to her and the child. In some cases this may mean that parental responsibility of the other parent should be terminated. While a child's rights trump the rights of the parents, the link between the welfare of the parent with care and the child's own welfare is well-established. Any mother whose wellbeing is going to be significantly affected by contact with her abusive partner/rapist/etc is going to see her parenting negatively impacted too. In those cases, the best result for the child is to keep the mother supported even if that means trampling over the rights of the other parent. This is no different from when children are removed from parents and taken into care. It's about what is best for the child, and sometimes (certainly not always) that means what is best for the parent who cares for that child.

Where there is no documented history of abuse but a parent claims it has taken place, the default position should be to believe it and err on the side of caution. Few people make this stuff up as far as going to court. Again there could be panels who investigate these allegations on a balance of probabilities basis. There are well-documented patterns of behaviour in relationships like this that experts will recognise (or see through if lied). They won't always get it right, but I'd argue that the amount of times they get it wrong would be far less than the amount of times we are failing children and victims under the current system. A parent who is willing to undergo a perpetrator programme and supervised contact under these circumstances is normally going to be someone who has earned the right to contact with their children ultimately. There will always be the sociopathic types who can play the system but they are in a minority and will always find a way to terrorise their victims sadly.

1. Fact-finding courts for situations where parents use children to manipulate the other parent or deny contact. Genuine cases where mothers prevent access should result in mothers being fined (again through tax system). However, where it's the case that actually mum has put her foot down over dad turning up late repeatedly etc, this should result in dad being warned and then fined if he continues (or losing his rights to contact - again research shows that inconsistent contact is actually more damaging than no contact at all).

1. If all the above were in place, state-funded single parent benefits could be reduced as more parents would be paying for their offspring. In some cases where the father is poor, this would result in some children being less well off than others, but twas ever thus TBH and to some extent that is life. If you choose to have a child with a parent on a low income, it stands to reason you will have a poorer life than someone whose other parent earns more. A hardship element can be introduced for single parents on a lower income like this to ensure that children don't suffer, as the links between poverty and child educational attainment are well-established and it benefits no one to keep the children of poorer families down.

Apologies for the length and also meant to add that all of the above applies to situations where dad has care and mum is the other parent. I keep defaulting to single mother only because that is overwhelmingly the case at present.

10. Courts should accept that lack of minimum CM payments as a sign of neglect from the NRP.

I think most of the things suggested are already in place. The only thing we need is for the government to automatically discount maintenance from salary and for childcare costs to be split equally between the parents.

Oh and it would be great if we can stop looking down on single mothers. It is quite a heroic act to raise children on your own.

"

1. I'd remove the requirement that only married mothers can name the father on the birth certificate in his absence. "

You can't just go accusing people of fathering your child though can you?

Gwenhwfar - why not? No different from current CSA rules - if the 'father' denies it, a DNA test is taken.

Unless we are saying that loads of women lie about paternity? Say more than father who don't pay maintenance?