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?

Of course a widower is worse of financially than a lone parent who relationship has broken down
The grief could affect ability to earn massively. Jail and separation are choices they are not comparable.

In certain circumstances they can be. My family member didn't 'choose' to be nearly killed by his exW, witnessed by his DC, who still are having intense counseling many years later.

Hi all,
Thanks for the reports about this thread.
We know emotions are running high today but the Talk guidelines still apply and personal attacks are not ok. When reported, we will remove them.
Thank you

Again, needmorespace, my condolences for your loss.

The thing is though, if your husband was earning enough to pay over £40000 annually in taxes he must have been a very high earner and therefore in a very good position to arrange adequate financial provision for you and your dc in the event of his death? Surely, this only reinforces the argument that the widow/ers pension should be means tested.

No sadly their are far more children with parents in prison than bereaved children. Of course they should be supported. It is wrong that the government has its priorities wrong.

But the fact that some absolutely appalling crap parents (mostly fathers) leave their children and ex in penury doesn't mean that the spouse and children of those who cannot support their children because they are dead should be left in penury

so...your children are more deserving than mine? is that it?

Well I think unfortunately your message is being diluted by some of the less pleasant posters the thread has attracted.

Equally unfortunately, the days of welfare for anyone with any kind of asset are numbered I'm afraid (and no I don't agree with that and yes I understand that you can't eat a house).

I've been involved in a campaign to reinstate or replace cut provision to provide very minor provision (less than £1000) for destitute women escaping serious DV recently and it's very clear that it's not going to come from government. It's also become necessary across the sector to use the starkest case studies as illustration.

Also you're making perfect sense but some of the posters agreeing with you are not helping the cause.

ALL women need to band together to oppose all policy changes that negatively impact ANY group of women.

Frankly some of the attitudes expressed on this thread are vile.

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

So the children who have had a parent die are more important? Kind of a 'well, if she'd only married a better man, she wouldn't have this issue' don't you think? What if I said 'but any decent father would have made sure he had the necessary insurance in place to support his children should the worst happen'? And what if I then added 'and those who can't get insurance shouldn't have children'? Would you consider that acceptable?

This is the one subject that makes me irrationaly want someone else have to syffer with the rest if us. My sons Father died, we were already divorced so my kids git nothing. We we're stilk in pain and bereaved but apparently my kids deserve less support than the children of married parents because their father left them not once but twice.

Having read the whole thread i really feel OP that you do not like opinions that go against yours. You posted on this asking for opinions, you got them.

Personally I feel the benefit should be means tested. Some clearly don't need it. Others could do with more.

I think we all get how much trauma you have suffered, but you are no different to anyone else who has lost a partner. I know quite a few who are very grateful for all the help they received, to me you don't.

I agree with your comments needsahalo. I get the feeling, I may be wrong, that some posters on here feel that comparing a widower to a single/lone parent is distasteful, as though it's somehow demeaning to them? I'd love to know why to be honest. As a lone parent who was in a domestic violent sitiuation a lot of comments on this thread are making me realise just how much stigma there is against "us" and how some people want as much distances from "us" to "them" as possible.

I think it should be paid to the main carer of any bereaved child.

My ex husband died when our children were 5, 7 and 10. In the final few months of his life I had to change my work hours completely because he used to cover my work and spent my entire free time either up the hospital, hospice or eventually, care home so the children could see him. Just the parking costs crippled me. I also stopped accepting any more maintenance as I didn't feel it was morally right. We were all devastated when he passed away. Three days before his funeral I received a very formal letter from CSA stating that my case was now closed with no monies owing. That was it. Ok, we weren't married but I still had 3 devastated children, severely compromised finances and I wasn't entitled to anything. I just had to get on with it. I wasn't bitter. I was mostly grateful that all the services which helped us get through were charities which provided unbelievable bereavement support.

it's a shame that this thread is getting so argumentative, it means that people are to busy point scoring/defending themselves to actually discuss the changes.

OP, I asked earlier if you were supporting any changes to the current bereavement benefits or whether you think they should carry on exactly the same. I'd guess that most people would be in favour of some changes but not all. There is a huge middle ground between the exsisting and the proposed benefits.

Needs you are twisting what I said and not reading my posts. My dh has life insurance, due to my health needs as I said earlier I am uninsurable.
No those children are not more important. There should be financial help for children whose parent split due to DV or are a criminal.
However the above circumstances are much more likely to happen than bereaved children.
Their should be enough money for all three groups of children but the government spends money on the wrong things and lets companies/the wealthy avoid tax.

As a lone parent who was in a domestic violent sitiuation a lot of comments on this thread are making me realise just how much stigma there is against "us" and how some people want as much distances from "us" to "them" as possibl

Yes, I'm picking that up too.

Especially from the bizarre (and erroneous) separation between "allowances" and "benefits" thatbsomeone was trying to draw.

All quite surprising and disturbing.

So grieving is to become another "luxury" that the well off are going to be the only ones "allowed" to partake in.

My DH has severe COPD and we have no children.

So glad ive lost weight because that will give me more options for certain "careers" when the time comes.

Havent read whole thread yet but i did see something years ago that said you couldnt get bereavement payment unless you were widowed over the age of 45 if you dont have DC.

I suppose I'm genuinely surprised that there was this benefit in the first place, in my ignorance. I didn't know there was a widowed allowance. It seems odd to me that one group of suddenly lone parents are treated so differently to others. In terms of pensions, these days, partners can receive work pensions as well as widows/widowers (at the discretion of the trustees etc). Giving this allowance solely to married/widowed partners seems really strange to me, very out of time with modern life.

Wouldn't universal credit/tax credits/housing benefit if applicable also be available in this situation???
I can't imagine the sadness and turmoil at losing my husband would bring but there are already benefits in place to help people on the lowest wages so surely this widows allowance is just on top of that??

Thank you Manumission for clarifying that it wasn't only me feeling that way. I do question my own judgement sometimes (something my ex kindly left me with!!). It definitely seems odd to argue the semantics of allowances/benefits - gives the impression that it must be distinguished from benefits, because only a certain type of lone parent is on those!

Gosh, people will be saying that employees shouldn't pay out a death in service payment next because we shouldn't be so thoughtful towards only bereaved people.
I am not huge in financial acumen, but I am sure what a PP said was that the widow(er)'s allowance reflected their loss of earnings form all the NI contributions they had paid over the years and , sadly, were never going to profit from. Technically, therefore, this in not a 'benefit' hence the hair splitting.
I absolutely agree that all children disastrously affected by a breakdown in their family need emotional and financial support - at the extreme end you would have a Thatcherite telling you that the widow's family alone should support her (or the single parent, or whoever) and that there should be no need for any 'handouts' - what does she need that big house for to rattle around in anyway? As well as some outright snobbery on this thread, there is also a fair amount of the reverse going on.
On another note, my husband and I are uninsurable as he has a heart condition. He is , therefore, more likely to die. There are large numbers of people who have made rather callous comments about the stupidity of being uninsured, presumably just to rattle some cages.

meant 'employers' at the beginning obvs...

What do you think NICs are FOR ptang?

Havent read whole thread yet but i did see something years ago that said you couldnt get bereavement payment unless you were widowed over the age of 45 if you dont have DC.

HelenaDove That's the one thing that is being corrected in this raft of changes. Anyone who was under 45 always got the £2000 one off bereavement payment, but after April they'll get £2500 lump sum and £100 per month for 12 months.

I have no issue with widows receiving this support.

I think that the idea that children whose loving father dies are more in need of support than children whose father is in prison is debatable.

Children whose fathers are in prison are incredibly vulnerable and statistically their prospects are pretty bleak.

Childhood trauma is complex and not a competition. As a society we should take more collective responsibility for all vulnerable children.

I think the problems you have op are not financial anymore. I'm glad there was something to tide you over. I think the resentment on this thread stems from the fact that there are children who will spend their whole childhood in financial and emotional dire-straits through no fault of their own and they are just as entitled as your children to support but will receive nothing like £100 a week.

Sorry for your loss.