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?

Manumission

The comment the OP made in the opening post is factually correct -
Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner.

The fact that the CSA/CMS is shit meaning that people who are not widows or widowers are/feel they are in that position shouldn't mean there was a swathe of people jumping on her declaring that widows are no better than other lone parents.

It's a shame that the thread descended in the way it did. Especially when it's a benefit claimed by relatively few families. If the government is allowed to cut assistance to the most vulnberable - widows/children/the disabled - then it's giving them carte blanche to cut everything.

Wow, fwiw - I agree with you and I am a 'widow'.
But your post is very angry - I don't think anyone is saying what you suggest.
From my point of view I think all bereaved parents/children should get payment and your children are just as deserving of financial support as mine and to lump 'spouses' in the way that you have is unfair.

Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner.

But that's exactly what prompted some to point out that imprisoned fathers-of-your-children and dead fathers-of-your-children that weren't with you when they died aren't available to co-parent or pay maintainence either.

And that DV escapees don't benefit from coparenting and are routinely advised not to pursue CM.

So THOSE respects are exactly the respects in which other groups of women struggle identically.

It's the bereavement and grief that are unique.

lalalalyra - if your partner dies and you're not married, or your ex partner dies, then yes, you're in exactly the same position but not entitled to any support. I think that's what I'm struggling with, that it feels a very restricted support for people. I'd like to see it broadened out massively and means tested, so all children are supported.

Thank to the posters who answered my question re benefits for bereaved parents.

I think a lot of posters are making very sweeping statements about other posters viewpoints. . I don't think a single poster has said that bereavement benefits should be stopped, the disparity is between posters who, I think, are saying the benefits should continue as they are now and posters who think that the exsisting benefits are overly generous.

I genuinely think that 18 years of additional benefits, taxable or not is too much. I think 3-5 years is more suitably in most cases.

^ that was to Nibledbyducks

I think a lot of people don't truly understand what Widows Parent Allowance is. It's based on your late spouses NI contributions and what they would have drawn down in pension.

So it's not "free" money like many people thing.

We had life insurance in place but my income dropped by at least 80%. The costs of caring for my children didn't. And that's before you even start to deal with emotional trauma.

I went back to my part time job 6 weeks after the funeral. Due to receiving WPA it affected my tax code so immediately I was £100 worse off per month than my job share colleague. And it counts as income for the purpose of tax credits. The same doesn't apply to maintenance.

how do parents who have lost a spouse differ from lone parents who have been left/abused/had a relationship end 'just because'? Why should a widow receive state support to her children reaching the age of 18 when a lone parent by any other means is expected to work when her child reaches 5?

A lone parent by any other means has some chance of receiving maintenance, or even if no maintenance is paid, sometimes things are bought directly for the child. I realise this often doesn't happen, so it's right that this type of support isn't included in other benefit entitlement calculations, but a widow and her children have zero chance of that type of support.

A widowed lone parent would be expected to find work at 5 if they rely on the same benefits as other lone parents, there's no difference. The widowed parents allowance isnt enough to live on on it's own.

And that DV escapees don't benefit from coparenting and are routinely advised not to pursue CM.

And thats appalling and someone should be starting a thread saying "something should be done about this..."

It shouldn't be "well lone parents don't get this" or "people escaping DV don't get this". If anything is prompted this thread then it should be people saying "Actually, maybe those escaping DV should get a similar kind of payment."

This is my point about the race to the bottom. These other groups don't get this kind of money and that's not right. However, that shouldn't mean a threat against widows and widowers should descende into 'Well X doesn't get them so Y shouldn't'

Sorry hadn't really considered that. I have never claimed jsa and was basing it on the only person I know who is sadly a long term claimant. I feel she should be on ESA or similar but that's not going to hsppen.

This is my point about the race to the bottom. These other groups don't get this kind of money and that's not right. However, that shouldn't mean a threat against widows and widowers should descende into 'Well X doesn't get them so Y shouldn't'

I agree it shouldn't be a race to the bottom. I also can't see that it shouldn't be means tested.

This thread is the perfect example of divide and conquer tactics.

chocolatemonster
I think a lot of people don't truly understand what Widows Parent Allowance is. It's based on your late spouses NI contributions and what they would have drawn down in pension.
So it's not "free" money like many people thing.

becausewecancan The bereavement benefits is something I'm always banging on about when people post about there being no reason to get married. It's often viewed that divorce is the worst possible outcome to a marriage, but it's not, death is.

I do think there could be a good argument for a bereavement benefit being paid in the name of the children. That would get around the divorce issue, but I daresay it would open up a whole raft more with regard to remarriage etc.

There's no wya that a government intent on cutting benefits are going to extend a benefit that currently needs a marriage or civil partnership to qualify to unmarried people though. They'll be rather hoping even less and less people marry so that less people qualify.

Everyone talks about 18 Years of support. Surely that a quite a rare situation?

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.

And I thanked everyone for their posts and it is not me who has been deleted for personal attacks.
A few posters have gone beyond way beyond the limits of debate - even an AIBU debate - and got very personal about me. I do not like their opinions.
However people who don't think that there should be additional benefits for widowed people - I disagree but I'm interested in why and I don't dislike them for holding it. I asked because an understanding of public opinion (which has actually been very mixed) helps me in framing the letter I'm writing to my MP on this matter.

I know quite a few who are very grateful for all the help they received, to me you don't.

You're wrong. Because I'm so grateful for it I want any parent whose spouse dies after 5th April to know that financial support in the form that I got it is available for longer.

On the contrary, chocolate. I think a lot of people have strange ideas about the benefits system and think it consists of "free money" unconnected to NI contribution.

A great many welfare benefits are "contributory" (eligibility dependent on NI record) and WPA is an excellent example.

It should be kept and it's a great example of why the welfare system in the U.K. Is (has been) so good.

This horrible distortion of "please support us widows to keep our generous WPA but at the same time please collude with the misinformation that it is nothing to do with the welfare system" is shocking.

I agree it shouldn't be a race to the bottom. I also can't see that it shouldn't be means tested.

I think one of the main reasons it isn't means tested is because of the cost involved. At the moment its very simple - you either qualify or you don't.

Can I ask a stupid question, if this allowance is based on what your late spouse would have received in terms of state pension, then why can't a childless person "give" theirs to another family member? For example, Mr and Mrs Smith don't have children but Mrs Smith gave up her job to care for her husband who was ill with degenerative condition for 10 years. Mr Smith dies aged 50. Can she claim?

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?

No! I have now said 4 times that I support more financial support for all children who have only one parent who can provide for them, where that parent needs it.

If you posted about your benefits being slashed I would reply with sympathy and wondering if there was anything I can do to help. I wouldn't think 'well I don't get that particular benefit so that makes your children more deserving than mine so I disagree with you getting it.'

Well no lala I think some people were just shocked to learn that WPA exists at all. Unless it's your job to know or you need to know because of your circumstances there's no reason you would know.

You can't reasonably call ANY comment on the anomaly a "race to the bottom".

If this thread proves one thing, it's how little understood the welfare system is.

OP,
However people who don't think that there should be additional benefits for widowed people - I disagree but I'm interested in why and I don't dislike them for holding it

....but I can't see that a single poster that has said this. I can only see posters who think the current payments are too generous. Really, really happy to be corrected

Candy At the moment if Mrs Smith is under 45 she can't claim. If she's over 45 she can claim on a scale of £33 to £112 a week depending on her age for 52 weeks. She'll also get a lump sum of £2000.

After April 1st she'll be entitled to £2500 lump sum and £100 per month for 12 or 18 months (I'm not sure which)

Manumission If people were shocked to learn that WPA exists then it just goes to show how uncommon people claiming £450 a month for 18 years is.

I didn't call any comment a race to the bottom. I was calling the "lone parents don't get it so widows shouldn't" comments a race to the bottom.

I'm not massively in favour of this benefit, if you're genuinely asking for opinion somerville - I'd rather it was something that people needed rather than handed out to everyone. It seems very out of step with other benefits, and there is something insidious (to me) about the way it seems to link in with some people being more deserving than others. The 18 year payment is massively over the top.

Candy makes a good point, your contribution to NI and tax is not something you recoup from the state, it's a benefit you take when you need. As a single working person, I've paid a huge amount of tax for years, very happy to do so and accept that I (thank god!) will hopefully never get it back. That contribution is not something you cash in like a premium bond or savings.

Hard thread to read because such intense feelings are involved, but intensity of feeling does not relate to how much the state should pay out. It should be means tested.

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.

Toast Yes there is a huge middle ground and it would definitely be better to find some.

WPA was only paid out to about 40,000 people last year. It (THANK GOD) is a benefit that only s small amount of people a year need to apply for. So I think that bringing in means tests might be more expensive to administer than any saving. But if there was a saving then sure that would be sensible.
The 18 month thing is the biggest issue to me. That feels far too short. Especially for those who are pregnant or have babies at the time of their bereavement.