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?

I was calling the "lone parents don't get it so widows shouldn't" comments a race to the botto

But has anyone actually said that? Who?How many posters have said that?

Nibled of course it was easier for you , you didn't lose your partner who you loved. You had a partner very much alive and loving and supporting you. That is not comparable to someone losing their current spouse.
For your boys then no there was no difference.

OP
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.

I think 18 months seems too short too but I also think 18 years is too long? What do you think? What would be acceptable? I'd rather it was means tested and longer for low income parents.

I think 18 months seems too short too but I also think 18 years is too long? What do you think? What would be acceptable? I'd rather it was means tested and longer for low income parents. - I agree with this Toast. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the whole benefit.

If you haven't git a baby you won't get it for 18 years. Would be interested in finding out how many families actually received this for the full 18 Years.

For example, such was the trauma of my marriage breakdown that 10 years later, I am only just beginning to think that another relationship is a possibility. The OP is re-married within 4 years of her husband's death. At her insistence, her situation is worse than mine because her husband died and mine left me. Now personally, I agree, her situation probably was worse. But she has moved on without too much difficulty and has had the benefit of benefits to help her do that. She also has society's sympathy. On the other hand, I suffer the stigma of single parenthood, have perfect strangers scoff at me and make 'benefits' comments loudly within my ear shot and refuse to allow their children to play with mine because single parenthood is apparently catching confused and to be very clear, I am a full time teacher and have been for many years!

Needsahalo

I never said that my situation is worse than yours and I'm sorry that my OP came across that way. I have continually tried to clarify that I'm talking about averages. More single parents get maintenance and have some degree of shared care and shared responsibility, than don't. Whereas all widowed lone parents don't have that. So a specific WPA is a blunt tool, sure, and there are people who should get something different and don't. I would get behind a campaign to make sure they got something like it! But I also don't think that just because some parents don't get enough support from the state, that this is reason to take it from those who currently do. In fact, I think it would make campaigning for more support for those groups who've been mentioned here easier in a way, to point out that they should be entitled to something similar.

I assure you that widows are not immune from being stigmatised. Both as single parents, and - apparently, having a husband/dad with cancer is catching.

Finally - and this is important so I'm going to say it despite the risk of being called manipulative again - a widow who remarries hasn't moved on. I'll never move on from the first love of my life. His illness and death broke my heart. But in the absence of any other options I kept on keeping on. And for me, yes, that involved a work colleague who became a friend who became more. I don't need to justify that to anyone.

It would be interesting to know how many people get wpa for 18 years, given how few people it's paid to in the first place. I'd guess that the vast majority of people getting this benefit don't get it for that long. I will only get it for six years, and that's assuming I don't get a new partner and choose to live with them.

Needmorespace I'm sorry your DH passed away last year.

Financially a widow/er isn't in a worse position than a someones who's partner goes to jail, or who walks out and refuses to pay maintenance, etc.

It's a reasonable point. Maybe there's been a moral distinction between widows and (for e.g.) Domestic violence survivors or abandoned spouses in the way this was set up? It doesn't quite make sense to me. Traumatised people suddenly parenting completely solo are all deserving of support I'd have thought.

Manumission I agree with you that those who become a lone parent in traumatic circumstances are all deserving of support. But unlike many others on this thread I think we are more likely to achieve that by campaigning for other groups to get payments similar to WPA. Rather than taking away WPA because others don't get it. (Which is maybe not your argument but it is that of some others on here.)

lalalyra Thankyou for your reply upthread.

Once again bereaved spouse forget that being married makes their grief more important.
Nibble I have previously been involved with the campaign to support WPA being paid out to partners as well as spouses, and indeed the carers of orphaned children.
I am not trying to compete with you for resources or say that anyone's grief is worse. I loved my DH because he was the first love of my life and the father of my kids and my best friend. Not because I happened to have married him.
I do think at some point the law will change on this (as recommended by the high court but ignored so far by Tories) so I think it is in the best interests of people in your situation too if the level of support isn't slashed for people who were married.
And in the meantime I recommend that people get married where they can and get life insurance where they can.

I couldn't agree more somerville.

I was just taking issue with the "single parenthood is a choice" posts and correcting the flights of fancy about WPA not being a welfare benefit.

I think 18 months seems too short too but I also think 18 years is too long? What do you think? What would be acceptable? I'd rather it was means tested and longer for low income parents.

I would say something like 2-3 years for everyone, but then continuing until the youngest child is at least a set age. (Unless parent gets into new relationship, of course). If it would be cheaper to means test then I would support it BUT based on current finances, not the tax year prior.

I haven't RTFT so apologies if my point has already been made. I wasn't aware this benefit existed, and I'm glad it does but I do agree with posters bringing in unmarried parents etc and the impact of parental loss there and it's not clear to me why those children should be penalised. I am divorced. When I was married we had sufficient life insurance and death in service benefits to ensure that in the event of one of us dying the mortgage would be paid and the surviving parent could take unpaid time away from work or go part time. This was the sensible thing to do. Now that I am divorced I have no such protection. I have maintained my life insurance and still have work benefits and my exH would be able to take on full time care of our children without too much financial impact. He did not continue his insurance however. And is now self employed so no work benefits. Were he to die the child maintenance would stop which would leave me in a very precarious position. My children would then be with me full time, either reducing my earning capacity (or increasing childcare costs). It would take my entire disposable income to meet this shortfall. And there would be no state support for me and my children (who would also have lost a parent and suffer the same emotional impact as the children of a marriage) would suffer disproportionately. I'd think that any campaign for this benefit should include the children of divorced and unmarried parents whose circumstances will be every bit as devastating (financially and emotionally).

Not enough for the most vulnerable, but enough for tax cuts for the rich. Op YANBU we as a society should absolutely support widowed parents of young children. The cost can't be that huge. We're finding billions for trident!

Thank you Somerville.

I do titter at'User' saying it's fair as government making cuts, but then moaning in another thread he/she has been refused help with a fat tummy!

It is cruel.

None of the cuts are necessary.

We live in a country with more millionaires and more homeless than ever

This is not a coincidence.

Legal marriage or union is a legal protection.

I'm not going to start explaining why "taxing the rich" won't help a jot. In my experience, those who make these comments have no interest in understanding why they're so economically / intellectually wrong.

This was cuts are obv sad but, overall, I'd rather limited funds were spent elsewhere.

I was going to agree with you (although I do think there should be some means testing).

And then you started going on about how people who are lone parents for other reasons don't deserve support. Because obviously my stepdaughter didn't suffer at all when her mother started screaming to her face that she hates her, and doesn't suffer now when her mother refuses to have any contact with her. The fact that my stepdaughter has also gone through trauma, sleepless nights, and counselling doesn't matter to you. Because she's not part of your deserving poor (not that I expect financial compensation).

I think a few people have misinterpreted what I meant.

The assumption is that all widows are rich. I have even had people to say to me how lucky I am to be able to pay my mortgage offer. They assumed that - I didn't tell them I had. Trust me it doesn't feel lucky at all.

To my mind benefits are there to support people when circumstances change. Widows/widowers are just one of the groups this applies to. There are many others.

I didn't want to sell and move house - it was the only stability my kids had, the house they grew up in.

And then you started going on about how people who are lone parents for other reasons don't deserve support.

This is bollocks.

The OP has said time and time and time again that she thinks single parents deserve support.

Try reading her updates please. OP is more than happy for single parents to get more money, she has never once said that you should not get support. Don't put words into her mouth.

I agree with you that those who become a lone parent in traumatic circumstances are all deserving of support. But unlike many others on this thread I think we are more likely to achieve that by campaigning for other groups to get payments similar to WPA. Rather than taking away WPA because others don't get 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.

Just incase you missed it.

The assumption is that all widows are rich.

No it isn't

The point is that a widowed multimillionaire would theoretically be entitled to WPA. Although I doubt many do.