That cutting benefits to widow/ers with young children by over twenty thousand pounds is heartless and cruel?

[Somerville]

My DH was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2013 and died in 2014. During both the period he was ill, and immediately afterwards, it was extremely difficult for me to continue working. A well as caring for him and then dealing with the huge administrative burden, I have children for whom continuing to attend school every day and 'cope' with normal life was impossible. Alongside all that I had to somehow try to find a way to live with my own grief. And then get out and learn a living - as a freelancer I'd have had no income at all unless I continued to work.

The bereavement benefits I received helped me immeasurably.

• I got a bereavement payment of £2000 which helped cover the immediate few months after his death when I could barely get dressed - let alone work.

• I also got a monthly amount of widowed parents allowance - about £450. (Non means tested but taxable, meaning that as my earnings increased I returned some of this to the government through my tax bill. However, I knew the safety net was there when my earnings dropped again - as indeed they did at one point when one of my children could only manage half days at school.)

I've remarried so no longer qualify - fair enough - but if hadn't I'd have received this until my youngest child left school.

However, the support available for parents who are experience the devastation of becoming widowed after April 1st this year is changing.

• £3,500 immediately.
• £100 per month for the next 18 months.

That's it.

Research by the Childhood Bereavement Network (CBN) suggests 91% of widowed parents will be supported for a shorter period of time than they would under the current system, which can pay out until the youngest child leaves school. It says the typical working family will lose out on more than £12,000, and expects a working parent with young children to lose even more – £23,500 on average. link here

Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner. And with bereaved, confused and devastated children.

How about it MN? Am I unreasonable to think this change is cruel? And if not, what can I do about it?

Well, I feel the same about this change as the OP and I haven't "moved on". My beloved DH died 7 years ago, leaving me with 5 children and I haven't remarried nor felt the need to seek another partner. However, the statistics show that many bereaved people do seek the comfort, love and support of a new relationship - nothing wrong with that and by the way the allowance stops at that point. I do have a full time job and earn just into 40% tax bracket so I was hit by the first change which was about removing child benefit from higher rate earners, despite the fact that a two parent family could have earned almost twice what I earn between them. Holding down a full time job, supporting bereaved children, dealing with your own grief, maintaining the physical building in which you live as well as family routine is no easy task and there is no-one to share that with no weekend contact from an absent parent, no end of jail term when someone can come home... The nearest similarity is the abused partner who has fled to start a new life, other comparisons are flawed.

Thick as mince some attitudes. Quite wise not to respond, somerville. I've reported also.

O well at least op isn't costing the taxpayers money as her allowance will have stopped upon marriage. Not used the term benefit as others have put it better than me. Op gets the allowance due to her late husband paying NI and not receiving a state pension. It is taxable unlike jsa or income support.
Op I am glad you have been able to find some happiness.

BTW I agree that a parent raising their child alone while the other parent is in prison or after fleeing DV (or even just left them for OW and not providing for their children) did not have a choice.

As I have said multiple times now, I would support more help for all those families.

The average single parent does still co-parent their children with the other parent. (I've just checked and that is still accurate according to the latest stats.) Absolutely no widowed parents do. That was my point in the OP. Not that single parents who don't get to share the responsibilities (emotional, practical, financial) with the other parent shouldn't get support.

I wish we got our spending priorities better in this country for all children experiencing trauma.

Somerville I also just wanted to say that my DH and I were talking about this very subject this week. Unfortunately the chances are that I will leave my DH a widower and I told him it would make me happy to think he might be able to find someone as nice as me and fall in love again. I would love it if he was able to be happy again, why wouldn't I want the best for him? It comforts me to think this.

Also, funnily enough I have life insurance but still don't agree with any cuts to bereaved families.

For those posters who believe insurance companies will do anything they can to avoid paying out...

Each year the Association of British Insurers (ABI) publishes average pay out rate statistics from across all insurers. The latest figures are from 2015 and show that 98.2% of all life insurance claims were paid, with over £1.5 billion getting paid out in total.

(Copied from another website)

endof , I wasn't thinking it. I am neither so small minded nor judgemental.

JSA is taxable catlady as is carers allowance and some other welfare payments.

Why are you making a false distinction between what you term "allowances" and what you term "benefits"?

Lots of welfare benefits are entitled "allowance" not just welfare for widows. JSA being the obvious example.

My mothers death was upsetting, but my fathers rapid remarriage was worse. I'm sorry for projecting OP. It did cross my mind but I should have kept it there.

TBH Somerville what struck me as slightly incongruous is that you've posted extensively in the past about being a very fortunate financial position.

Umm... I'm confused Manumission
Very fortunate?
And extensively? I barely ever mention finances - I'm finding doing so on this thread quite uncomfortable.
But yes, I'm no longer on any benefits. Between my earnings and my new DH's we don't qualify. Fortunate, sure.
And I had insurance that covered my mortgage - because my DH died, which I consider the opposite of fortunate.

But I also said that up thread. That I paid tax on the £450 per month, and had insurance. I wasn't hiding anything.

But while DH was ill our/my finances were shit. And when he died suddenly and I needed to pay for a funeral I had very little cash in the bank, couldn't work, and didn't know if his insurance would pay out or not.

And I said right from the start that this didn't affect me any more. That I'm angry on behalf of people who lose a spouse after April 5th.

BTW I agree that a parent raising their child alone while the other parent is in prison or after fleeing DV (or even just left them for OW and not providing for their children) did not have a choice.

Thank goodness for that. I though I'd fallen into a really nasty thread. Hopefully Seven is alone in her brainstorm.

Maybe I'm confusing with someone similarly named somerville. If so I apologise.

I was sure I remembered you saying several very astute and clever things about inheritance planning and also about education costs.

Manumission I know a bit about those things (through my work) but not because I have had large inheritances like I think you might have surmised.

Don't want to get into an argument about semantics, OP, suffice to say that I meant gratuitous in the sense of unwarranted and unnecessary simply 'because' you had in previous posts already made the point about your children's trauma and to do so again in, what looked to me like a, calculatedly pointed way, well, it came across as manipulative.
Apologies if I misread your attitude toward the cancer awareness adverts but, in my defense, it was not an unreasonable assumption to make given the horrible triggering effect such ads have on your dc.

Being choices of the criminal and the choice of the parent who abandons the children and refuses to pay maintenance.

Thank you for the apology Being.

And others clearly I didn't mean it was the choice of the lone parent! Sadly society cannot afford to support every family where one parent has made bad choices.

Oh no. I wasn't surmising. I thought you'd posted specifically and explicitly about ringfencing your assets for your DC ahead of your second marriage.

Of course assets are different from income and school fees are paid from trusts etc but in PR terms I just thought maybe it didn't make you the best poster girl for this cause personally . Especially on a thread on which single parents are being said to have CHOSEN their predicament etc.

But I see you've distanced yourself from the nasty posts.

And it must have been another "S" username anyway.

I quite agree with you that the benefit shouldn't be cut BYW. I just got sidetracked by the reasons for the divisiveness.

Reuset and others who reported, thank you. And HQ for fast deletions.

And others clearly I didn't mean it was the choice of the lone parent! Sadly society cannot afford to support every family where one parent has made bad choices.

And you're including domestic violence and abandonment in that!?

You are aware that violence is against the law?

But in your view society can't afford to support the victims of violent crime??

I literally cannot believe what I'm reading today.

Somerville I agree with everything you have said on this thread. I cannot believe the cuntishness of some posters tbh. I hope that their children never, ever suffer the grief and devastation that mine felt when their dad died traumatically and unexpectedly last year.

Where is all the money going if there is no money left? My husband paid over £40k a year in taxes and won't be receiving a pension despite making full contributions over a 30 year period - yet some people would begrudge my family a lump sum payment (which didn't go anywhere near to cover a funeral) and £100 a week?

I utterly despair at the inhumanity of some people.

i have mixed views on this but stated up thread It also ends when the widowed person lives with a new partner.

well on this one yes it should end then,just the same as when a sp moves in with a partner,do people really think that the widowed person should still be entitled

Yes I ring fenced my assets (my house) for my DC through a prenup and will because DH's insurance money should be left to them in the event that anything happened to me/messy divorce. This is what is recommended in situations like mine, alongside taking out an insurance policy to provide financially for new spouse (and vice versa).

And I'm not trying to be a poster girl. I'm trying to raise the issue. If I had just said the situation that is being changed and not raised my own situation in my OP I'd have been accused of drip feeding and things from other thread pulled into this even more.

Manu no I am not include my DV in that I said in my first post those families should be supported however that a separate issue.
The government cannot afford to support the children of parents who Abingdon them in the same way as bereaved children. However the CMS needs a massive overhaul with severe penalties for job payment.

• abandon.