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).

But when you moved in with your DP and his two DC kittens, the CM to your hypothetical child that the CSA/CMEC/whoever assessed you for would be slashed.

You're not speaking from a position of financial vulnerability or as a tightwad; You're speaking as someone who would carry on paying CM at its previous level and also contribute reasonably to the new household.

Not all people will do that.

Single parents don't know for sure whether a new partner will be reasonable, generous or a skinflint until they are in a difficult position of cohabiting and financially reliant.

littered hen & smokey

Exactly, im not a lodger. I am part of a family unit. And before moving in I knew that not only meant our resources would be pooled that God forbid should anything happen to my DP then I would be responsible for two small people. And should for any reason we split up that I will always have his DC in my life.

And I woudnt have it any other way

I understand what you're saying op but I think it's not really about the benefits system and more the complications that come with blended families.

Lots of couple have one partner being financially dependent on the other even if only for their lifestyle, i.e one earning 20k and one earning 60k. The question comes whether someone should or would take financial responsibility for step children.

One solution would be to enforce a decent amount of maintenance from nrp's, another would be for single parents to aim to be as independent as possible by trying to maximise their income.

Ultimately though parents and their children come as a package and this is just something that any step parent has to take on board. I really don't think it would be right to have a woman earning 8k claiming 1k a month in benefit while her boyfriend who earns 50k lives with her rent free.

I'm genuinely surprised by how many people in this thread think moving in together = taking complete financial responsibility for.

I have a lovely relationship with shared finances, we're a team in all ways, support each other financially etc. But we lived together for a few years first! (with the partner moving in making a financial contribution, but not merging finances or paying for everything).

I don't think you really get to know someone till you live together, and I would never make a full commitment (financially or emotionally) until after doing so. I am lucky that I am not on benefits so I get to make that choice.

I do think it's unfair that people on benefits don't have that choice and get immediately lumped with full financial commitment whether that's what they intended or not.

I don't understand how someone can be better off if their finances go from paying for 1 DC maintenence and their own living costs to and addition adult and two dcs? Am I missing something?

I was talking about my personal situation in my case because DP doesn't claim benefits my costs went down.

But if he had been claiming benefits then I would have taken that as part of the package, and in that case yes of course as the partner moving in your going to have less, unless the "parent" gets a job

Sorry but if you have children, you don't move someone else into the family home until they are ready to become a fully fledged family member. YABU.

For single parents to aim to be as independent as possible by trying to maximise their income.

I run a single parent group on behalf of the charity Gingerbread and during a meeting a few weeks ago, one of the staff from the Gingerbread campaigns department said that this is what we must all aim to do. There are talks about reducing the age at which we must return to work from 5 to 3 and to be full time to be reduced from the current age of 13. Benefits and support will be cut and the Gingerbread lady said that all that we can do is to do all we can to earn as much as possible. It was very sobering to hear.

I also agree that changes need to be made regarding the payment of childcare costs to include contribution from the NRP.

Sorry but if you have children, you don't move someone else into the family home until they are ready to become a fully fledged family member

Nobody knows what it is like to have children or live with children (or fund children) until they do it If.

My husband is stepfather to my eldest two. Despite two decent incomes (his FT, mine PT) and the fact he is very responsible and was very willing to join the family, I know there are things (both financial and practical) that took him by surprise or were an adjustment for him in the first couple of years.

Luckily, he's very good at sharing, we had no financial problems and could afford plenty of stress-relieving, family-building holidays.

If any of that had been different, the outcome could have been different. Blending families isn't automatic or easy.

That's a fair point. I suppose I meant this should aim to be a fully fledged family member from the start.

YABU- Your kids dad should be paying for your kids and if your bf then moves in he should contribute too and you won't need to rely on the state.

If my partner is paying for his own kids then why the hell should he also pick up the flack for my feckless ex who takes his step kid away on 4 holidays a year while he can't be arsed to take time off work when his own kids visit him - never mind pay what he should?!!

Babyroobs how far do you think £5 a week goes?

Kittens - You say you think benefits for single parents are not very much at all, but the amounts vary depending on circumstances and income. A lone parent working 16 hours on minimum wage will be entitled to a lot more than someone full time in a professional job.

You can have a pretty good idea of what it will be like though, you don't move in overnight or at least IMO you shouldn't - having had my dad and then my stepdad leave when I was small I wanted to make sure I was pretty much a fully fledged family member before moving I had even been spuked on twice :) after that I figured it can't get any worse until their teenagers.

Middle - I understand some lone parents only get £5 a week , but many get a lot more than that. The government should do a lot more to make nrp's pay.

When I was a lot younger, I went through a short period of being on JSA. I was living with a flatmate, who was actually gay..and simply because we were of the opposite sex, we were told we would have to claim as a couple. Apparently as we often did shopping together, and ate meals at the same time and split bills (don't all housemates do this?!) this meant we were a couple. It was all slightly crazy and luckily I got a job within like a week of that meeting and he got one pretty soon after but come on...

Some of the rules and such are really fucked up and need to be dragged into this century...

Babyroobs, you may not have seen the post. Ex is on disability benefits and that's all there is. There's nothing in his pot to be able to pay more...

I just guessed they were not very much as my mum worked three jobs to bring us up.

Benefits bashing needs to be reigned in a bit in the UK, which I was shocked to read over weekend has the worst inequality in Europe. Personally I believe is due to the tax evasion and avoidance which comes at costs of less money for services.

Someone also posted this on face book - look how low benefits (and europe) actually make up the budget.

graphic courtesy of (www.facebook.com/paula.kirby.7?fref=photo)

Middle - sorry I didn't see that post, apologies.

I can see where you're coming from OP. From the POV of women being independent and less vulnerable to financial abuse, it's a big step to go from having an income from benefits paid to your account, to needing your partner to hand money over. If all relationships were fair and equal, it wouldn't be a problem, but they're not.

That being said, I don't think it excuses or encourages benefit fraud. If a woman was concerned about relying on a partner for income it would be better to just maintain two separate households.

Kittens- Yes I imagine things were very different back when you were young, as tax credits did not exist . I really don't think there was as much support then. I remember lone parent mums of school friends working two or three different jobs and my mum would help look after the kids whilst she worked.

It's an unpopular view, and I will be flamed, but women should aim for obtaining some financial stability and earning power before having kids. Also it is a question of choosing the father of the children wisely (rather than say a random boyfriend with whom you've been for a month) and being in a committed relationship before having children. Marriage offers some protection. (Btw I get that people change and relationships break up, but I despair when I see women having multiple children with multiple blokes, none of whom have long-term partner potential.)

I do believe that the way fathers can opt out of paying for their children in this country is disgraceful. If income is low (or apparently low), assets should be up for grabs. Including charges against property. Equally child maintenance should be factored in benefits calculations.

That is true awake but historically most women have been somewhat financially dependant on their husbands.

Women can have careers but imo there is usually a sacrifice be it fertility or work/life balance.

Men just don't have the same biological clock or the same guilt trips over their working hours.